I used to
love
Pokémon. Scratch that, I
do love
Pokémon. I love Pokémon enough to care about putting the accent on the “e”
every time. So it breaks my heart to hear how
Pokémon is sexist. This
article makes some good points, and you should
read it if you’re interested, but upon closer personal inspection, I have some
points of my own to make.
 |
| Rattata |
 |
| Stantler |
 |
| Noctowl |
Pokémon, for the most part, are modeled after real-life
animals (see above, Stantler, Noctowl, Rattata), which as we all know, never appear to
be only male or female. Therefore I find it strange that some Pokémon do (see below
Jigglypuff, Lopunny, Jynx). I remember growing up with these games, and my brother
would ridicule me if I had a Jynx in my main lineup (regardless of her rarity
and kickass ice/psychic combination). Does the Pokémon company mean to suggest
that boys can have Machamps and Rhydons but not Chanseys? I think this is
unfair.
 |
| Jynx |
 |
| Jigglypuff |
 |
| Lopunny |
 |
| Machamp |

 |
| Chansey |
|
| Rhydon |
It’s also kind of messed up that the original Pokémon games’
only playable character was male. Although it’s true to the TV show in this
sense (Ash Ketchum is the protagonist in EVERY SEASON), the TV show is unfair
as well! It took the game designers until Crystal Version to decide to put a
female option in the game.
 |
| Ditto |
 |
| Ash and Pikachu |
Some attack moves, such as Attractor Charm, are only learned by these
female-looking characters, and only work on Pokémon of the opposite sex. That’s
right, apparently there are no homosexuals in the Pokéverse. (Fortunately, Ditto almost
makes up for this with his ability to breed with either gender)
I also remember how all my friends became outraged when we
heard that Ash’s Pikachu was a girl. Were we brainwashed to boycott strong
females at such a young age, or simply afraid of contracting cyber-cooties from
playing too much Gameboy?
This all being said, I do believe that
myfavoritechildhoodgameintheworld has some redeeming qualities. Since the
second generation Pokémon games, coinciding with the addition of breeding, the
Pokémon have had genders. To avoid argument (and prevent us from breeding many
many more of them), legendary Pokémon do not have genders. Furthermore, I find
it refreshing that gender does not play a part in any attack/defense/speed
statistics that the Pokémon have. If they did, I’d be condemning the series and
accusing them of gender sterotyping.

The Pokémon that
are only male or female tend to be fairly balanced (see Nidoking/Nidoqueen,
Miltank/Taurus, Volbeat/Illumise), so while boys can train one and girls another,
their abilities are very similar. Even if you do find this specification sexist
or segregating, the immense variety of available Pokémon make up for these few
outliers. The vast expanses of the Pokéverse allow for a few species like these
(the solution to pollution is dilution, right?).
 |
| Volbeat and Illumise |
At first I was going to cite Nurse Joy and Officer Jenny,
two working females in the TV series, as examples of the show using female
characters merely as love interests and nothing more, as Brock tries to make
moves on them constantly. However, since they never reciprocate his
infatuation and sometimes act as crucial elements in the storyline, I believe
they might actually be positive role models for young female viewers. By watching these
characters, one can see how it’s possible to be confident, successful, and
happy, all without a man in your life.
I hereby conclude that, while Pokémon has been accused of
sexism in the past, and arguably might retain some of those controversial
qualities, overall it is a positive influence on our youth by promoting
equality and including confident female characters.
Sorry everyone, the pictures were formatted much better before I hit "Publish." I promise I didn't mean for them to be so obnoxious.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that while Pokémon does have some elements with gender that one could nitpick and find something to complain about, it is overall not a sexist show. The thing that really proves it for me is actually in the Pokémon that exist in both genders. You mention that they are equal in strength, which actually seems counterintuitive, considering in real life, females are statistically proven to have less physical strength than men. Call me sexist, but it's biology! However, the fact the the show made them equal proves that they strive for equality of the genders.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think that the show definitely did make an effort by adding female Pokémons equaling their male counterparts, I think that the fact that they had to add female characters displays gender inequality regardless. Why can't girls like male Pokémons? And similarly, why can't boys like female Pokémons? I definitely think the whole "cooties" idea is depicted in the presence of characters of both sex. While I do think that the creators should have had characters of both sexes all along, I think that the children who enjoyed Pokémon then tended to choose their favorite characters with their sex as one of the most important qualifications. Why are children raised believing that the opposite sex has "cooties?" On the other hand, allowing young girls to play the Pokémon games as female characters certainly instills the image of strong female characters within their minds and can serve as an empowering activity. I think the entertainment industry as a whole should take the effects of their portrayals of character's genders [and the corresponding qualities] with more seriousness, because it is an are which has remarkable influence on the development of children's thoughts, beliefs, and confidences.
ReplyDeleteI am a Pokémon nerd myself and even though certain types of Pokémon have a male and female equivalent with equal stats (e.g. Tauros and Miltank, Nidoking and Nidoqueen), it is important to note that the stat distributions of those Pokemon present typical male-female gender stereotypes. For example, Nidoking's highest stats are attack, special attack and speed (traits that are synonymous with athleticism), whereas Nidoqueen’s highest stats are HP, defense, and special defense (traits synonymous with longevity). Furthermore, the fact that Miltank’s base stats are equivalent to those of Tauros is beyond me. I understand that the game was trying to not seem sexist by creating a female counterpart for the male-only Tauros, but let’s face it, Tauros is based off of a bull and Miltank is based off of a cow. Pokémon is a game about battling and I can’t think of any possible reason that anyone would even think of choosing a cow over a bull if they were going to use that animal to fight for them. Like Nidoqueen and Nidoking, Miltank excels at HP (base stat of 95) and Defense (base stat of 105) and Tauros excels at Attack (100) and Speed (110). Come on, Tauros is a bull and you’re telling me that its speed is only 10 points higher than Miltank’s. Cows are one of the slowest, laziest animals on Earth. Its speed should be at least 60 points higher than Miltank’s. Also, you’re telling me that a cow is supposed to be more defensive than a bull. Bulls fight in bullfights and are often stabbed five or so times before they succumb to their injuries. I guess Miltank can have higher HP than Tauros, but Tauros should absolutely destroy Miltank in Attack, Defense, and Speed stats. I am not a sexist person and I agree that Pokémon is a bit sexist, however, we’re not talking about a Tiger, which is an animal that would frighten me regardless of its gender. We’re comparing a bull to a cow. Pokémon’s creators should have given Nidoking and Nidoqueen equal stat distributions if it did not want to seem sexist, however, Tauros should be a far superior Pokémon to Miltank. By giving the two of them equal overall base stats (490), the Pokémon creators are clearly just trying to avoid seeming sexist, but instead they are being completely ridiculous.
ReplyDelete