(12-22-2016, 12:25 AM)Baron Claus Wrote: 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.
Hmm, perhaps I have. Badatnames and Nefari brought up some good points, so I've taken some time to review my position on the matter:
I think it's important to first explore the role of Dipper and Mabel in the series before we dissect Disney's marketing strategies for it. I totally agree that Dipper is prioritized in the series — Hirsch makes it very clear that it's from Dipper's point of view — and this makes Gravity Falls
inherently unequal in its portrayal of the twins.
However, I believe the portrayal of the twins is very equitable despite this inequality. Dipper and Mabel are both full main characters of the story — it's just that the story is from Dipper's point of view.
And removing Mabel from the story would definitely fundamentally change Gravity Falls
from the unique series it is now, into yet another typical straight white male coming-of-age story.
Now, to tie this back into names, and the original topic of Disney's marketing:
(12-22-2016, 12:25 AM)Baron Claus Wrote: (*also RP was not saying to do the inverse if I understand right, but...)
Yes, I was not suggesting that they do the inverse. I was only saying that "Mabel and Dipper" was an option available to Disney, and their decision to not go with that means the ordering of "Dipper and Mabel" was intentional.
I am also not complaining about the usage of "Dipper and Mabel," and as you guys can see I use it a lot myself. I'm just pointing out that the intentional decision to go with "Dipper and Mabel" instead of "Mabel and Dipper" reinforces the notion that Dipper comes before Mabel.
From a creative standpoint, this is justified by the fact that GF is from Dipper's point of view. From a marketing standpoint, this is only a small facet of a broad male-targeting strategy; Schaal's exclusion from promos is the more evident example I was originally intending to complement with a smaller example.
The problematic part of this reinforcement (that Dipper comes before, or is more important than, Mabel) is that it leads audiences to think this is true in more ways than the original justification for this Dipper-first approach:
(12-22-2016, 07:05 PM)badatnames Wrote: Yeah you can.
I'd watch a Gravity Falls series without Mabel. Just replace that one scene in NWHS with Soos and bam.
I also understand that there are linguistic restraints involved, so it's inevitable that one comes before the other. However, the issue isn't really in the phrasing itself, but rather in what it represents — broader efforts on behalf of Disney's marketing team to emphasize Dipper in their efforts to target a predominately male audience.
(12-22-2016, 12:24 AM)Nefari Wrote: > 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.
Disney censored the lesbian couple because they were lesbian (every non-lesbian background character gets by), not because they didn't contribute as much to the story as Blubs & Durland. Although that may have been an effective reason the writing team used to get around the censor, it doesn't excuse the censoring of the lesbian couple in the first place. The writing team has been great with minority representation — and I'm happy they had wanted both a gay couple and a lesbian couple — so the issue isn't that anybody was overlooked, but that Disney intentionally censored the lesbian couple that was supposed to appear.
Perhaps the more pressing issue here is the homophobia and not the sexism. However, the inclusion of a gay couple and the censorship of a lesbian couple — regardless of "justification" (there's no legitimate justification for this kind of censorship imo) — contributes to the issue with LGBTQ+ representation where LGBTQ+ people are represented as a monolithic group, usually by gay males. This means lesbians, transgender people, and other folks are marginalized in favor of male representatives of the LGBTQ+ community; in other words, minority groups within this minority group continue to be underrepresented despite efforts to include LGBTQ+ representation. It's of course unrealistic to represent every group on the acronym every time, but it becomes problematic when certain groups just don't get featured anywhere at all, and worst when they're intentionally censored.
contributes to LGBTQ+ representation in both a positive way (they get represented), but misses a great opportunity (instead becoming another example of the diverse LGBTQ+ community being simplified into gay males), though to be fair the latter is mainly Disney's fault, as the writers had tried otherwise. GF's LGBTQ+ representation was supposed to have been significantly better (still relatively good as is), but Disney's homophobia led to a decision that instead resulted in LGBTQ+ representation that is inequitable in regards to gender. And because this was Disney's decision and not the writers' decision, I saw fit to include it in my examples of Disney marginalizing female representation with Gravity Falls
— but again, looking back, perhaps the homophobia is of more relevance than the sexism, though the two can sometimes be intertwined when it comes to LGBTQ+ discussions.
Lastly, with the sweaters, it looks like my concerns may be getting addressed soon — if TheMysteryofGF's Twitter is reliable, then it looks like we might be getting those licensed Mabel sweaters after all! :)