Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Master of Cultural Studies, University of Kashan

2 PhD student of cultural policy, Kharazmi University

Abstract

What is important in cultural and media studies is the way of representing roles, petty groups, groups, relatives, gender, and so on. Nowadays, when the child's audience reaches the point, the importance of these teachings is doubled, as children watch their favorite genre of "animation" in-school curricula on roles, stereotypes and gender identity. The purpose of this article is to compare the animations of "life skills for children" and "children of Flowers Building" from the perspective of gender. The present paper focuses on the qualitative analysis and the cognitive approach based on John Fisk's array to examine and review the common gender stereotypes in the two sets. For this purpose, all parts of the two animations have been studied. The results of the research show that in both programs, women and men are represented in terms of the number of characters almost equally. In a series of life skills for men, men are often represented with superior and more relevant attributes such as the power of high-thinking and decision-making, knowledge and aptitude, high self-esteem, wide social communication, and cheerfulness. The women's representations are often blurred with traditional gender stereotypes such as groaning, rumors, intercourse, personal independence, abstention, lack of control over anger and aggression, crying during troubles, and disorientation. In contrast to animation, golfers have a more positive and egalitarian approach to gender. Men are depicted in this collection with characteristics such as family-friendliness, appreciation, the principles of rituals and sociality, and their esteem and support. In representing women, it represents such attributes as beauty and adornment, futurism, attention to detail, equipping with multiple skills, self-control and rationality, and motivation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

[1] دانسی، مارسل (1388). نشانه‏شناسی رسانه‏ها، ترجمة گودرز میرانی و بهزاد دوران، چ 2، تهران: چاپار.
[2] سجودی، فرزان (1382). نشانه‏شناسی کاربردی، تهران: قصه.
[3] شریفی ساعی، محمدحسین (1391). «بازنمایی روابط دختر و پسر در سریال‏های تلویزیونی»، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران.
[4] ضمیران، محمد (1382). درآمدی بر نشانه‌شناسی هنر، تهران: قصه.
[5] فیسک، جان (1381). فرهنگ و ایدئولوژی، ترجمة مژگان برومند، مجلة ارغنون، ج20.
[6] کاپلان، سادوک (1380). خلاصة روان‏پزشکی، علوم رفتاری روان‏پزشکی بالینی، ترجمة رفیعی و رضایی، تهران، سالمی.
[7] گولومبوک، سوزان؛ فیوش، رابین (1393). رشد جنسیت، ترجمة مهرناز شهرآرای، تهران: ققنوس، چ 4.
[8] گیدنز، آنتونی (1386). جامعه‏شناسی، ترجمة منوچهر صبوری، تهران، نی.
[9] وولن، پیتر (1392). نشانه‏ها و معنا در سینما، ترجمة عبدالله تربیت و بهمن طاهری، چ 6، تهران: سروش.
[10] هال، استیوئرت (1391). معنا، فرهنگ و زندگی اجتماعی، ترجمة احمد گل‏محمدی، تهران: نی.
[11] Barlett, P.C; Vowels, C.L. & Saucier, D. (2008). Meta–Analyses of the Effects of Media Images on Men’s Body–Image Concerns. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 3, PP 279-310.
[12] Beasley, C. (2005) Gender and Sexuality: Critical Theories, Critical Thinkers. London: SAGE.
[13] Brod, H. (2002) ‘Studying Masculinity Studies as Superordinate Studies’, in J. K. Gardiner.
[14] Connell, R. W. (1995) Masculinities. Oxford: Polity Press
[15] Fisk, John(2000) the codes of television, media studies: A Reader New York: New York press.
[16] Johansen, J.& Larsen,S. (2002). Signs in Use: An Introduction to Semiotics(Translated by John Irons), New York, Routledge.
[17] Atkin, Albert. (2006). "Peirce's Theory of Signs", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[18] Kaplan, G. and Rogers, L.J. (2003) Gene Worship: Moving Beyond the Nature/Nurture Debate overGenes, Brain, and Gender, Other Press, New York.
[19] Lindlof, Thomas R,& Tylor Bryan C. (2002).Qualitative Communication Research Methods, Londan: Sage Pybication.
[20] Martin, B. & Ringham, F. (2000). Dictionary of Semiotics, New York: Cassell.
[21] Taylor, F (2003). content analysis and gender steryeotypes in childerns book, teaching sociology, vol. 31, PP 300-311.