Male Point Of View And Mr. Peabody

For those who are interested in the subject of cultural conditioning and how sex/gender roles are subtly conveyed to children, the movie "Mr. Peabody and Sherman" is a good current example. The movie was brilliantly done, a wonderful combination of artistry and science resulting in a very entertaining piece of animated cinematography, imho, I enjoyed it very much. Based on the cartoons from the 1950s and 60s that ran with Rocky and Bullwinkle (Ted Key, Jay Ward), Mr. Peabody is a Beagle who happens to be the smartest being ever, he's highly accomplished in any field he's interested in. He adopts a human child named Sherman, and invents a time travel machine called the "Wabac Machine", and teaches Sherman History lessons by actually going to various places and events in History. Sherman's friend Peggy is part of the cast of characters. The cartoon and the movie mix teaching and mentoring with fun, humor, and interesting entertainment. 

Mr. Peabody and Sherman is such an excellent show that the male-bias-point of view can be difficult to notice if one is not paying attention, because it's aligned with stereotyping, behavior, and language that most people are USED TO. They use normalized gender stereotypes and normalized male-bias behavior and language, so it's not so noticeable to most people. It's not some kind of blatant "war on women", no one is waving a torch or attacking females, it's much more innocuous and subtle, and therefore much more effective.
In other words, people might notice if Mr. Peabody and Sherman attacked Peggy or called her terrible names, but they won't notice when she gets ignored, condescended to, or excluded.
This is how it's done.

The first thing a person might notice is their own defensiveness when reading this post.
"Give me a break! Seriously? Mr. Peabody and Sherman is sexist? That's just ridiculous! FemNazi!"
That kind of defensive reaction is a signal that something quite real is going on, and the person's SUBCONSCIOUS KNOWS IT, even if their conscious mind is trying to pretend it isn't.

Making it about Feminism, Politics, and Radicalism is another signal that the subconscious DOES have awareness about the male bias.

It's just science.

Emotional attachment will cause a person to either become defensive or protective about any subject.
If one is objective, they won't be either one.
If they "feel" something, it will just be curiosity or boredom.
It won't be about taking sides or being defensive, and it certainly won't include hostility.

Humans insert BIAS into things all the time, it's nothing new.
Getting worked up and defensive means that a person is emotionally attached to a certain Bias, and does not want anyone to talk about it, point it out, or expose it.

In the movie Mr. Peabody and Sherman, there are many examples of "male-only" or "male-biased point of view" in the otherwise wonderful film, such as the low number of female characters altogether.

Why does it matter whether it's male biased or not? Because no one is SAYING that it's a male-bias-point of view, and it's being presented as a "general audience" kid's movie. That's misrepresentation, but that's ALSO so normalized in Western culture that most people don't even notice it when it's happening right in front of them, even to their own kids, or to themselves.

The female characters that are portrayed are either weak (Peggy's mother), self-centered and bullying (Peggy and the control freak DCF worker, Mrs. Grunyon), or dimwitted and self-centered (Marie Antoinette). Peabody and Sherman visited only male "geniuses" from History. There were no positive, smart, strong female characters, but plenty of male ones. Even Mona Lisa, Da Vinci's portrait subject, was depicted as "disagreeable" and argumentative. There were also plenty of subtle (or not so subtle) jokes making references to anti-female innuendos.

But there were also some subtle, or not-so-subtle, ancestral innuendos that also aligned with normalized stereotypes that targeted male characters, however that still did NOT depict those targeted males as "weak" or "completely incapable". The only person who was targeted as completely negative was the female DCF worker, everyone else was given a couple of positive little nods in their direction, including Peggy.

~~~Giving a negatively portrayed character a little positive "nod" is actually part of the process, it's like a gossip saying about a coworker "She's such a slut, look at those shoes, and I heard that she treats her husband like crap, he's whipped - well I don't really know, that's just what I heard... I'm not saying she's a BAD PERSON, I mean, I don't really know her." 
~~ "I'm not saying she's a BAD PERSON"... after they just called her a slut and said she treats her husband badly... that's about them trying to cover up being a  Gossip and a backstabber.

All in all, the film had the appearance of not being PURPOSELY male-biased, at first glance, or even second. Most people won't even think twice about the fact that Peggy was not included in the "work" on Leonardo Da Vinci's machine, or realize that anti-female-stereotype "jokes" are not appropriate in a children's film, nor are ancestral innuendos. They might not even notice the stereotype reference to "A Dog's Best Friend" being a BOY, and not a CHILD, who could be either male or female.
The give-away that the male-bias POV was, indeed, on purpose, was one particular scene where Peggy and Sherman crashed Leonard Da Vinci's "Flying Machine". It was Peggy who flew the machine. It was completely her idea to do it in the first place, Sherman was very resistant, afraid he'd get in trouble. Peggy jumped in and hit the lever that launched it, took the controls and flew the machine with Sherman hanging on for dear life. After flying around for some time, thoroughly enjoying flying the machine, she forced Sherman into taking over the controls in an attempt to make him realize his self-confidence. Then, Mr. Peabody TOLD Sherman that he doesn't know how to fly, so Sherman suddenly crashed the Flying Machine. Da Vinci is very excited to see that the machine WORKED, and runs over to greet them.

BUT.
Da Vinci exclaims that Sherman is the "first man to fly"!
Here's where it gets interesting.
(People who are defensive will say "oh stop making a big deal, it's nothing..." but it actually IS "something", this is important).

Da Vinci does not say "person", or even "boy", he says "MAN". Remember, adults wrote the script. Da Vinci isn't a real person, they wrote that line, the actor performed that line, and a huge number of adults edited and processed the movie. Scripts for films is a BIG DEAL, if they didn't want it there, it wouldn't be there.

Sherman does NOT say "Actually, Peggy is the one who flew the plane!" OR, "Peggy actually flew it first!" OR "It was Peggy's idea!"
He doesn't say any of these things.
Again, the script was written that way.

Now, if Sherman had a twin brother with him instead of Peggy, a girl, and his brother flew the plane first, what would the script sound like then?

NOR DID Peggy say a single word about it. (Would Sherman's twin brother have kept silent when Sherman was praised for "being the first Man to fly"? Is that how the script would have gone? Probably not...)

That one scene gave confirmation that the male-bias-point-of-view was indeed on purpose.
It is very possible, of course, that the filmmakers were keeping with the original spirit of the cartoon from the 50s and 60s, but what if the original bias on the cartoon was between whites and blacks? Would it be okay then? 
Probably not...
Humans generally accept any bias that they grew up with as "normal", as "the way things are", but if they didn't grow up with it, they'll notice it and say it's wrong.
They also don't tend to think it's so "okay" and "normal" if the bias is obviously against themselves.
Funny how that works.

Bias is modeled to children on a regular basis in our various human cultures.
Whatever group feels the most entitled to control and power is usually the group making the most insulting "jokes" about other groups, and trying the hardest to imply that THEIR group is actually the most deserving of "power" and control because they are the "best and the brightest", and the "most innocent" as well.

It's otherwise a really great movie.

Annoyed At Babies And Children, Control And Narcissism

When a baby is born, we immediately see if the baby can make noise and respond to external stimuli. When the baby responds, we can tell that her/his boundaries are intact. Babies make noise when they feel hungry or uncomfortable, which is the only way they have to communicate that they need to be cleaned, fed, helped with pain or illness, and generally cared for.

Babies who make noise in order to get the attention of an adult are doing what they're SUPPOSED TO DO.

Adults who have Narcissism often get annoyed when babies make noise instead of feeling the normal empathy response to find out what the baby is trying to communicate, what the baby needs, or how to meet that needs.
They may also respond to the baby's noises in another "caregiving" way, such as ASSUMING that they already know why the baby is making noise, which is about their image of being a "good caregiver", or an "expert", not about actually caring for the baby.

Narcissistic adults typically feel either no compulsion to care for an infant, no empathy, care, or personal respect toward the baby or child or their well-being, OR they may feel ownership toward the child, and entitlement to that ownership. This can be seen in Narcissistic adults who ARE the parents of a child, but also who are NOT the parents of a child.
(Both are often seen, and noticeable, in N. adults who's job entails working with babies and children.)

Adults who have Narcissism may completely neglect a baby or child, or "discipline" a baby for making normal communicative noises. They are often ANNOYED by the child's noises and behaviors, and they are ALSO often annoyed that the child is not fitting into their expectations.

As babies get older and grow, they are often treated worse and worse by the Narcissistic adults around them, in their family or community. The more normal, healthy autonomy and genuine self-esteem they show, and the less they go along with the "Status Quo" (SOCIAL hierarchy of who is supposed to be treated like they're 'wonderful', and who is supposed to be treated like a 'shadow'), the more the Controllers around them will target them.

Children who don't act exactly like a Narcissistic adult wants them to act will often be labeled as "WEIRD" or "BAD", or even "CRAZY". Unfortunately since humans tend to follow along with others so easily. other people often go right along with targeting a CHILD for this kind of labeling and slander instead of standing against it and protecting the child from it. So instead of just one Narcissistic adult targeting a child with terrible labels and slander, there often ends up being a whole group of people scapegoating the child, and continuing it as the child grows.

In nearly all cases, when scapegoating exists in a group, favoritism also exists. If there is a scapegoat, there is nearly always also a "Golden Child" or a "Hero-adult" (or several).

It does not matter whether the EXPECTATIONS projected onto a child by Narcissistic adults are like a "perfect little lady or gentleman", OR like a "little bad-ass", or like a "jock", or even a "green pacifist" or a "religious zealot".
All that matters to Narcissistic adults is whether the child FITS THEIR OWN IMAGE and EXPECTATIONS or not. A child who does not appear COMPLETELY COMPLIANT is a THREAT to a Narcissistic adult's IMAGE (perfect father/mother, intimidating authoritarian, bad-ass coach, perfect or beloved teacher, etc.)

In other words, they treat the children in their group the same way they treat adults: If you don't FIT IN with what we want from you, and how we want you to BE, you're NOT WELCOME, YOU'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH, YOU'RE NOT ONE OF US, WE DON'T WANT YOU, YOU'RE INFERIOR.

So if a child fits in their CLIQUE and follows their expectations, fits in with their version of reality, makes them FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES, they'll often put the child on a pedestal. If a child DOES NOT fit in, or does not feed their ego for whatever reasons, they'll often scapegoat the child.
Just like they do with adults. Of course it's much more damaging to children, because children are relying on these adults for their very survival, as well as their healthy growth as human beings.
~Narcissistic adults often treat children and young people according to their SIZE and APPEARANCE, not their actual AGE. So they'll treat a tall 15-year-old like an adult, and a small 15-year-old like a younger child. They may treat a young adult who LOOKS older like they are more capable and responsible than another of the same age who has a more child-like appearance.
They often treat adolescent children who's bodies have the appearance of sexual maturity like PEERS, like they're the same age as themselves, instead of KIDS.

Embracing Sexism: People Who Want Gender Roles And Stereotypes To Be Real

It's no big mystery why so many boys willingly embrace believing when they're told that males are superior to females. Being superior means that one is ENTITLED to control and authority over others, so of course they would want it to be true. The less mature a person is, the more they want to be in charge of others for no reason other than they feel powerful being "the boss". In human beings, whoever is given the Royal Scepter of entitlement and authority is usually loathe to give it up.

It's also no big mystery why so many women go right along with cultural stereotypes and gender "roles". One's beliefs are tied to one's IDENTITY, one's sense of "self", who we are in relation to others, how we fit into the world, and WHY.

A MAN wouldn't want a GIRL to be able to fix cars, build houses, be a math or science expert, be a master musician or artist, be physically strong, or LACK FEAR  because it contradicts his feeling of automatic superiority... boys were often TOLD that many tasks and even FEELINGS are "male only", that girls and women aren't ABLE to do certain tasks or learn them, understand them, or feel certain emotions because they just aren't "equipped". They were told and shown that they were superior to females when they were children, so of course they want it to be true.

But why would a WOMAN also not want a GIRL to be able to do those things? Because... she may have bought into the stereotypes when she was growing up too. MANY women were told or SHOWN over and over while they were growing up that the REASON they were being treated with LESS RESPECT than their male relatives and friends was because females are UNABLE to learn and do certain things.
These beliefs became internalized, part of their IDENTITY.
So when Dad taught their BROTHER how to fix the car, but not THEM, they BELIEVED IT when Mom and Dad said that it was because "boys are naturally good at fixing cars and girls are not", or that "girls are not strong enough to fix cars, but boys are".
(As if all boys have the same strength and ability, and all girls have the same lack of either.)

They BELIEVED IT TO BE TRUE, so they made it part of their REALITY.

Giving those kinds of beliefs up means DISMANTLING THEIR ENTIRE BELIEF SYSTEM, about who they are, and about the world itself. And it would also mean that they would have to face the fact that they were taught less than true things by the people they cared the most for, their own family. It would likely feel like a terrible betrayal, or like the floor is falling out from under one's feet, and that's too much for many people to deal with, understandably.

BUT ALSO~~~ Women who KNOW that the gender roles and stereotypes are not really REAL often USE THEM to gain and keep control over BOTH women and men.
Controller/Narcissist MEN often do the same thing, and have been doing it for CENTURIES.

A Controller/Narcissist KNOWS that other people are emotionally invested in stereotypes, gender roles and expectations, so they can easily use them to HURT others, to control others, to hurt the reputations of others, to sabotage them in business and in any other goals they may have, and even to destroy their social ties.
For example, it's EASY for a Narcissist to get others to turn against a woman who is an automechanic, or a man who cares for children, because those are NOT culturally stereotyped "gender roles".

They are not within the parameters of the stereotypes.

It's NOT NEARLY AS EASY for a Narcissist to get others to turn against a woman who is a Registered Nurse, or a man who is a Contractor, because those jobs are WITHIN the cultural stereotypes.
People will BELIEVE that a person is "GOOD" just because the person does a job that fits with the stereotype of their sex, and they EASILY turn on those who are doing something that does NOT FIT the stereotype of their sex.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PERSON doing the task, the job, or having the interest, it's about PEOPLE'S BELIEFS that are TIED TO THEIR OWN IDENTITIES AND EGOS.