Something I Noticed About 2012 Gravity Falls Marketing
#21
I asked Baron about this and I think it's fine to continue discussing gender in GF marketing so long as it remains GF-focused.

So, to respond:

> Merchandise: But the effect isn't shaming or dismissing women or promoting any character because of their gender. The effect is not harmful, and the effect is not gender or inequality fueled. I am not familiar with GooG or its merchandise so I can't comment on that comparison.

> Gay: No, assuming that it was selected because of genders is jumping to conclusions. Maybe it was because Blubs and Durland are recurring speaking characters. Maybe it's because they've received development that has hinted towards emotional closeness and homosexuality, whereas the females were unknown background characters. We don't know that this decision had anything to do with gender, and we shouldn't assume that it did.

> Names: So? Does that mean it's automatically sexist to order a male before a female? Characters need to be listed in an order. When one character is male, and the other female, you're going to put one before the either. Putting the female first does not indicate progressivism, and putting the male first does not mean you're a misogynist. That's like saying it's sexist to give a female character a pink shirt. You're not reinforcing decades of patriarchy by putting two names in order.
[Image: Eg3lWTv.png][Image: tumblr_mcy2clswjj1qesb9j_by_homestuck__f...699rlh.png]
not a ship
Reply
#22
Sweaters: it's not shaming but it is dismissing. Not saying that Dipper hats should be exclusively for guys and Mabel sweaters exclusively for girls, but to prioritize Dipper's hat over Mabel's sweater is being dismissive of Mabel. And while the reasons could be perfectly sound and unrelated to gender, the result is that what little Gravity Falls merchandise we have isn't equally representative. This is similar to GotG in the sense that the female aspects of these films/series are suppressed and those who want Mabel sweaters or Gamora merch, especially women and girls, can't get them. The reasonings behind GF and GotG may be different, but the effect is the same.

Blubs & Durland: I'm not referring to the intent, but rather to the effect. How Disney works is perhaps always going to be the biggest mystery here, but the effect is that gay (as in male) relationships get represented, but lesbian relationships don't (this is necessarily gendered because same sex relationships are, by definition, gendered). It's a very subtle dismissal of lesbian relationships in favor of gay relationships, and although the GF example is small and minor, when you add it up with the widespread instances of this across other films and TV shows, it can become problematic.

Names: perhaps I've been using the term "sexist" too lightly, but what I'm getting to here is that Disney could have gone with "Mabel and Dipper," or even used that interchangeably with "Dipper and Mabel," but instead they decided to exclusively do "Dipper and Mabel," and put Dipper first wherever possible — not just in synopses, but also marketing and merchandise. This was a gender-based decision and that necessarily makes it "sexist," as in prejudiced against one gender. However, whether or not Disney is justified in doing so, in light of how their marketing was gender-based in the first place, can be debated.

You're not necessarily reinforcing patriarchy, but patriarchy is still at play here. The transition of using male nouns and pronouns as default (i.e. "he" as a default, women taking their husbands' last names, etc.) to a more inclusive approach (i.e. "he or she," women keeping their last names or doing both, etc.) is most welcomed, but the fact that we say "he or she" instead of "she or he" is reflective of how "he" came first. I don't regard it as immoral to say "he or she" — it's certainly way better than just saying "he" — but the ordering here is rooted in patriarchy. In terms of progressiveness, it's a big step forward, but more could be done — and thus the aforementioned shift from "he or she" to the neutral and inclusive "their."
Reply
#23
(12-21-2016, 10:13 PM)ReptilePatrol Wrote: Names: perhaps I've been using the term "sexist" too lightly, but what I'm getting to here is that Disney could have gone with "Mabel and Dipper," or even used that interchangeably with "Dipper and Mabel," but instead they decided to exclusively do "Dipper and Mabel," and put Dipper first wherever possible — not just in synopses, but also marketing and merchandise. This was a gender-based decision
No, it was not a gender-based decision whatsoever, it had ENTIRELY to do with the fact that Dipper is simply a more important character. He is the focus of the show. If Mabel were the focus, it would be "Mabel and Dipper." It's the same as Mario and Luigi, Mario is more important, so he's listed first. Also,
(12-21-2016, 10:13 PM)ReptilePatrol Wrote: Disney could have gone with "Mabel and Dipper,"
That's just the same problem on the opposite end, not a fix to the problem. Seriously, the order of peoples' names is not sexist whatsoever, that's just unreasonable.
Yo #teens! While you're out there gettin rad remember that your death is 100% inevitable & all life is meaningless, bae.✌


Reply
#24
> Blubland: It's not dismissive in the same way that failing to include a character of every minority is not -phobic. You do not need to include both male and female homosexual relationships in order to not be sexist. Including minorities for the sake of including minorities is pointless. Blubland added to the story and continued long-lived character arcs, a couple gay strangers would not have. The fact that Blubs and Durland are male is irrelevant.

> Names: How on earth is it a gender-based decision? "Rick and Morty" isn't ageist. "Lilo and Stitch" isn't discriminating against men/aliens. "Finn and Jake"/"Calvin and Hobbes" aren't anti-animal. When you name things in a certain order, you are not discriminating against whoever was listed second, and you are not discriminating against whichever ethnicities/gender/sexuality/identities/etc they are part of. Consistency in naming characters in a certain order is common across all franchises, and that's also not sexist--just easier to remember.
I do not see the logic at all in thinking that the phrase "Dipper and Mabel" was decided because of gender. Dipper narrates the entire first episode, Dipper is based off of Alex Hirsch in Hirsch's show, thus, it's only practical that Dipper would be named before Mabel in most instances. Gender has nothing to do with it.

ICTOAN is right, reversing it is not a solution. If you change it to "she or he", you're still doing it because of the genders. You're referring to females first because they're females, and in doing so you're prejudicing against males.
Worth noting that "s/he" is also used relatively commonly, and that's also not sexist, just an easier way of writing it shorthand.
[Image: Eg3lWTv.png][Image: tumblr_mcy2clswjj1qesb9j_by_homestuck__f...699rlh.png]
not a ship
Reply
#25
(*Ladybug and Chat Noir is a great example)
(*also RP was not saying to do the inverse if I understand right, but...)

I think you've lost sight of the context in which we are discussing RP. These are complicated issues but in order for them to be respected, relevant and hold any weight their context should never be over looked.
[Image: 101860422_stidenterprise3.gif][Image: tumblr_nkgc1yQOXU1sccu9co1_400.gif][Image: tumblr_nkgc1yQOXU1sccu9co5_400.gif]
Reply
#26
(12-22-2016, 12:06 AM)badatnames Wrote:
(12-21-2016, 10:13 PM)ReptilePatrol Wrote: Names: perhaps I've been using the term "sexist" too lightly, but what I'm getting to here is that Disney could have gone with "Mabel and Dipper," or even used that interchangeably with "Dipper and Mabel," but instead they decided to exclusively do "Dipper and Mabel," and put Dipper first wherever possible — not just in synopses, but also marketing and merchandise. This was a gender-based decision
No, it was not a gender-based decision whatsoever, it had ENTIRELY to do with the fact that Dipper is simply a more important character. He is the focus of the show. If Mabel were the focus, it would be "Mabel and Dipper." It's the same as Mario and Luigi, Mario is more important, so he's listed first. Also,
(12-21-2016, 10:13 PM)ReptilePatrol Wrote: Disney could have gone with "Mabel and Dipper,"
That's just the same problem on the opposite end, not a fix to the problem. Seriously, the order of peoples' names is not sexist whatsoever, that's just unreasonable.

I disagree with that. The show is about Mabel and Dipper growing up.
[Image: mabel_pines_fan_button_by_requestbuttons-d5j5abu.png]
Reply
#27
...Okay?

That doesn't change the fact that Dipper is a more developed character, and nearly all story-based episodes are centered around him, while nearly all Mabel-centric plots are subplots.
Yo #teens! While you're out there gettin rad remember that your death is 100% inevitable & all life is meaningless, bae.✌


Reply
#28
Hand That Rocks The Mabel And Last Mabelcorn are Mabel episodes and are story episodes.
[Image: mabel_pines_fan_button_by_requestbuttons-d5j5abu.png]
Reply
#29
2/40

0.05%

ukelele ukelele
Made by FunnyFany
[Image: latest?cb=20150502165211]
[Image: donkey_kong_fan_button__updated__by_requ...5h4w0c.png]
DK is coming to steal your bananas. And kick some ass. And steal more bananas.
Reply
#30
Plus, you can't have GF with just one of the twins.
[Image: mabel_pines_fan_button_by_requestbuttons-d5j5abu.png]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)