A few weeks ago Ms. Magazine's blog posted an article
criticising My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Although I spotted it, I chose not to post about it, lumping it in with the kind of articles that claim G3.5 ponies are too sexy looking for young girls - critiques too ridiculous to take seriously. Don't get me wrong, I agree with Moff's Law, and appreciate well-thought-out criticism of the underlying messages of pop culture. But the Ms. article tried to critique the entire series based on a few marketing images and clips on
MyLittlePony.com, and clearly without viewing a single episode. If it had been more clearly a critique of the problems with marketing to young girls, it might have been a better article. Or, if it had contrasted some of the underlying imagery problems with the morals in the actual episodes, it would have been fair. Instead, it read as inflammatory and contradictory, the kind of trolling that doesn't really need any additional publicity.
But apparently I wrote it off too quickly. Lauren Faust read that article, and Ms. Magazine allowed her to
post a rebuttal. Faust's article focuses on the positive messages within the episodes. She also acknowledges problems with the show and feminism ("Yes, My Little Pony is riddled with pink, the leader is a Princess instead of a Queen and there probably aren’t enough boys around to portray a realistic society.") and notes the efforts made to balance her vision with Hasbro's pink marketing machine.
It could be argued that Faust's article is too focused on intent, and the few negative comments point out that "The interpretation is just as important as the intent", and that "The thing with symbolism is it's deep seated in our minds; certain colours or combinations of colours actually mean something whether it's intentional on behalf of the person who chose those colours or not." Still, it does give out the message that My Little Pony is a show that is at least
trying to be feminist, and perhaps it will encourage people to give it a chance.
