Why Am I Doing This?

I recently received a friend's comment asking me why I'm writing about cartoons, especially when I'm on the precipice of my burgeoning adulthood. So, I've decided to create a list the top three reasons:

#1 I don't have kids, so I think I'm an authority on raising them.

(although in this case, I am just bossy)

As with any 20-something, I think I'm the absolute authority on the world. Granted, I don't actually believe this, however, I do believe I have a unique perspective on cartoons specifically, because I'm not worried about their mind-numbing attributes on the minds of my young. More than anything, though, I believe I can help you point things out when your kids question why Timmy did this or that in the cartoon, by laying out a list of important topics that cartoons often neglect.

#2 I adore cartoons.

Am I probably too old to love cartoons?

#3 When things aren't going the way they should, we should all just step up and say no.

Really, folks, everyone needs to start standing up when we see problems in the world, whether it's as globally important as political policies or as local as a friend's insensitive joke. Small steps toward racial, gender, and other equalities are where the war needs to be taking place today.

Just doing my civic duty, everyone.

-Alex

What does Gender Neutrality Look Like?

I've been wondering about the real nature of gender neutrality a lot recently, especially with relation to cartoons and children's books. There has been a lot said about gender in The Hunger Games series, primarily because it highlights stereotypically masculine and feminine characteristics within opposite-gendered characters (see NPR).

Much has been said in praise of The Hunger Games' for its gender neutrality, but it really seems to mean gender stereotypes portrayed in less conventional ways. The tough, female protagonist allows for male readers, and the love triangles appeal to female readers. This is not to diminish the true literary complexity of the characters, but just to note an overarching observation.

What seems to be such a simple idea is really difficult to present within popular cartoons. While some shows appeal to a wider audience than they were intended to (think My Little Pony and Bronies), this is often not the case. Shows like Adventure Time and Regular Show (see my last post) can appeal to female audiences, but it is obviously not the target market, which is evident in the episodic progression, joke thematics, and in the nearly all-male casts (or females that are exclusively love interests).

All too often, gender neutrality is defined by a lack of feminine characteristics. My Little Pony is mocked because of it's "too feminine" nature, while hyper-masculine shows are seen as neutral because they can appeal to both genders.

For children, it seems that there are two options for shows:

 

or 

I think it's a big issue for young girls and boys, who are exposed to either cartoons that are ultra-effeminate or diminutive to female characters.

That's why we need more material like The Hunger Games  on our tv screens, because as more families become two-income households, children are left to watch these shows unattended and without discussions. Although, Hunger Games still manages to portray feminine traits as weak. So, perhaps this really isn't the direction to go.

With this said, cartoons oriented for older viewers tend to be much more gender neutral. Shows centered around "family life," like Family Guy, American Dad, or Bob's Burgers, tick all the boxes, so to speak. By covering, and satirizing, all aspects of the family dynamic, with the young adult-adult market in mind, stereotypes are not centered around gender lines, but rather age-specific attitudes. For example:

With issues of their own (generally with insensitivity and language), these shows are obviously not for young children's viewing.

All-in-all, if we're going to promote gender neutrality, we need to start including male and female friends, without any romantic entanglements involved. Bob's Burgers flips from character to character as the central plot-mover, suggesting that stereotypically masculine and feminine problems can come from male and female characters.

But, the most important part of any cartoon-viewing experience is to watch with the children, and make sure they understand that every character is valuable, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Racial Relationships in Cartoons

Today's cartoons have come a long way along racial lines.

While diversifying the protagonist base, within cartoons, was a big trend in the 90s, with cartoons like Captain Planet and Hey Arnold! creating ethnically diverse (but generally racist) groups of child-aged friends, the trend now seems to be moving toward ethnically ambiguous characters. Instead of racial overtones, protagonists and antagonists are portrayed by personified animals, which allows for viewers to separate race from the characters entirely.

I'm a huge fan of this trend. Allowing children to see any being as valuable, whether they're black, white, or a raccoon, is definitely the direction that we need to be going in, but it does create a new set of problems.

See, shows with primarily personified animal characters still present the same kinds of racial boundary challenges. Shows like Regular Show still constrain the appropriate companion as within the same racial group (let alone only along heterosexual boundaries).

Mordecai, a bluebird, is best friends with a raccoon, Rigby, which allows for the semblance of cross-racial friendships. Mordecai's love-interest, however, is a robin. While Margaret isn't technically the same species, it seems eerily similar.

Likewise, another of Regular Show's more prominent characters, Muscle Man, is entwined with Starla, who is of the exact same green-haired and bodied ethnic group.

Even romantic relationships that are not between nearly identical species are still remarkably similar in species, like with Eileen(squirrel) and Rigby(raccoon): 

Despite allowing for a diverse group of friends, like Regular show does so well, it creates a sense of pairing amongst the characters themselves. It suggests, "birds belong in romantic relationships with birds," which seems highly reductive for their target "tweenaged" market.

Another Cartoon Network show, Adventure Time, really isn't trying to promote racial diversity within friends. While Finn is the only human in the series, the majority of the other characters, while not human, share lighter skin tones.

With this said, Adventure Time seems to suggest only interracial relationships. For example, Jake (Finn's best friend) and Lady Rainicorn:

Finn is also propositioned by a myriad of females of different racial backgrounds. My personal favorite is Lumpy Space Princess (LSP), because of her pizzaz.

Interracial relationships, in Adventure Time, are not only mentioned, but are nearly the only kinds of romantic relationships the show possesses. While Finn, himself, seems interested in the more "human-like" characters, many non-human characters express a romantic interest in Finn.

Granted, Adventure Time isn't great with diversifying, but it still does a much better job of promoting interracial relationships than Regular Show seems to, despite an obvious attempt to promote a multiracial protagonist base.

It seems to me, that when we're addressing this tween group, that the number one concern should be to foster a sense of acceptability towards romantic relationships between racially dissimilar partners (again, not to mention different kinds of relationships). Racial tensions are something that children can pick up on much earlier than the age where shows, like Regular Show and Adventure Time, come into an influential sphere. It should be part of their goals to suggest that multi-racial relationships are something to celebrate.

-Alex

**Regular Show and Adventure Time are both Cartoon Network original shows. All gifs come from episodes or Cartoon Network promotional materials.