Pokeffects: Exploring Gender Roles in the Pokemon Franchise

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.

40 years of Title IX: How effective has it been?

One of my favorite athletes of all time- Laila Ali-  has kicked of a conference at the University of Michigan to promote the awareness of the historic law passed 40 years ago on June 23, 1972. She noted that women will box for gold for the first time this summer in London, something that she couldn't do before. Some people may wonder why there would be a need for a law like this. Laila Ali acknowledged that, saying, “If things were fair, we wouldn't have to be at this conference." Has Title IX made things fair?

 A 13-year-old boy was recently kicked off a girls' field hockey team for being "too good". The boy was raised in Ireland and has been playing field hockey all off his life. Since there are no boys' hockey teams in America, he has no choice but to play on a girls' team.Make no mistake, he is very good at it. But that is like trying to ban Walter Payton from the NFL for being "too good". It's his gender that is mainly driving this decision.  He has been trying to appeal the decision through Title IX, but as Professor Joanna Grossman of Hofstra University notes, his chances of winning the appeal are very little because he is not an underrepresented individual.  Which, in my mind, doesn't make sense. A boy in an all girls field hockey league fits the description just as much as anyone. I remember we used to have a girl as a kicker on my football team back in Virginia a couple of years ago. How fair is it that when a girl wants to play a "male" sport she is covered by a law, but when a boy wants to play a "female" sport he is not covered by that same law?

Title IX has done a lot of good for equality between the sexes, but true equality is equality for everyone. As the young man's case goes along, I hope it gets those who are deciding the case, and everyone else, thinking about how Title IX can be improved. I feel that Title IX can do more good in society breaking down stereotypes, not reinforcing them.

Bedroom Eyes and Scantily Clad Women

After all these posts about beauty and images of people in the media, my thoughts jumped immediately to models. Models in our culture represent the ideal human; after all what woman wouldn't want to have a male model of their own and vice versa? With this in mind, I wanted to see whether there was a difference between the portrayal of male models and female models in the media. So, what better way to find out than to search Google images for "male model" and "female model"? These images came up first. 

First, let's notice that the picture is entirely a close up of this man's face. This gives the image an intimate, emotional feel, and along with the suggestion of cloth in the background, we get the feeling that we are actually in bed with him. He gives the camera a smoldering look, like "Look at me. I'm so sexy. Don't you want me right now, ladies?" His casual position, with his arms behind his head, make his seem incredibly cocky and aware of his attractiveness, and confident that he can seduce whoever looks at him. In addition, his eyes are the most emphasized element in the photo, being light blue and basically outlined in eyeliner. So if we assume that this image is geared toward a female viewer, what does this say about the media's idea of the female viewer? Women clearly must want a cocky sexpot of a man, one that is confident in his hotness and leads them to bed with his smoldering eyes.


The first image of a "female model" is quite a bit different. Instead of just a face, we get her entire body. If we assume again that this picture is aimed at a male viewer, we get a very interesting portrayal of an "attractive woman". She wears a thin shirt, seemingly with nothing underneath, and kneels on the ground. Her attire seems dangerously ready to come off, and her position insinuates some sort of seductive, yet submissive attitude. Her expression adds to this. She definitely doesn't have the same confidently sexy look in her eyes as the male model. In fact, her eyes seem slightly emotionless, like she doesn't really enjoy what she's doing. I imagine her saying, "Whatever you want, it's all yours," almost like she knows what she needs to do to attract a man, but is not very interested. From a male's perspective, the image seems to show a submissive, barely dressed woman, ready to do whatever he wants. The male viewer doesn't care that she has no emotion in her eyes, just that she looks sexy and barely has clothing on.


Overall, I think the two images say a lot about what the media thinks men and women want to see. I find it interesting that both images are extremely seductive, revealing that the media believes both genders think constantly about sex when viewing attractive people. In addition, the differences between the photos show the perspective of a female versus that of a male. One could interpret that from the picture of the male model, women care more about emotional aspects, with the focus on the eyes and face, whereas men want the whole body. In addition, the emotion that each model exudes adds to the difference between the genders. The man exudes dominance, while the woman seems nonchalant and submissive. Do you think that this is just the way the media portrays the genders, or is this based in reality? Are these images sexist in their portrayal of the two genders?

"Pathetic Female Film Characters" Still Prominent in Modern Hollywood

As I was browsing through my Facebook a few weeks ago, I came across this very interesting critique shared by one of my subscribed pages about the five most pathetic female film characters of all time. The writer of the article, Lindy West, mentions these five characters: Amanda Seyfried in Red Riding Hood, That Blonde Lady in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, The Childlike Empress in The Neverending Story, Bella in the Twilight Series, and Buttercup in The Princess Bride as characters who act as “old-timey, textbook damsel-in-distress[es].” She basically condemns these characters for the fact that they just stand there, cry, and are useless. For instance, in the case of Bella, she is only existent when Edward is with her; otherwise, she is “paralyzed by grief.” West keeps in mind that fighting some of these monsters would be incredibly tough to do alone, but putting forth some effort is the least these characters could do to assist their men in shining armor. She mentions how most women in modern society can easily hold their own and don’t expect to sit there in complete hopelessness.

Lindy West is very blunt in this article, which I found refreshing. She wasn’t afraid to blatantly point out the flaws in these characters and society. Sometimes, this utter brashness is called for in order to truly get a point across. Indeed, these female characters of relatively recent movies should definitely be more self-sufficient than they are. What are these movies communicating other than that women are helpless without men? Haven’t women made enough progress to be rid of this feeble nature being portrayed in media? It is like with every step forward toward a more gender equal society, two steps are taken aback due to some generations-old point of view.

Nonetheless, we must keep in mind that more movies and story plot lines are starring strong female characters that outshine the previously stated female characters. In order to rid the weaker female characters memory from people’s minds, this progress must be highlighted and focused on. However, this becomes increasing difficult when the weaker female characters’ movies are popular and/or star well-known actresses. Will the movement toward gender equality ever catch a break?

What do you think? Do you think that these pathetic female film characters don’t take away from the other movies or TV shows that star competent female leads? Are Lindy West and I reading too far into this? Should we just enjoy the movies for what they are worth, even if they only show the men being capable? Or is this a legitimate observation to be concerned about? Furthermore, if this is a concern, what can we do as women and viewers to try and get rid of these plot lines? If generally people enjoy the story, what can we really do to deter its popularity? It would seem that we have been backed into a corner.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/08/pathetic-female-film-characters 

Music: Strategic Outlet for Spreading Idea of Female Empowerment?

            As an attempt to write a blog post that combines both courses involved in this blog, I found an article listing the top ten female empowering songs that were celebrated during this year’s Women’s History Month. Many of these songs I have listened to before and must agree that I feel inspired/pumped after listening to them. They are also follows (from http://www.theboot.com/2012/03/30/girl-power-songs/):

10. 'Man! I Feel Like a Woman,' Shania Twain

9. 'Gunpowder and Lead,' Miranda Lambert

8. 'Phenomenal Woman,' Olivia Newton-John

7. 'Somebody's Hero,' Jamie O'Neal

6. 'Guys Do It All the Time,' Mindy McCready

5. 'The Pill,' Loretta Lynn

4. 'All-American Girl,' Carrie Underwood

3. 'Just Because I'm a Woman,' Dolly Parton

2. 'I'm a Survivor,' Reba McEntire

1. 'This One's For the Girls,' Martina McBride

These songs cover a variety of topics, “including birth control, equal rights and the trials of single motherhood.” They applaud all things woman, especially emphasizing women’s strength, determination, and capability to have their own opinions.

            I find these songs refreshing after listening to back-to-back love songs or break-up/cheating songs. There is substance in the stories these songs are about, whether the substance is the pain and suffering one goes through to “survive”, the mocking of how similar men and women can really be, or the fun women can have without men. They promote how far women have gone from being submissive homemakers to resilient independent women who fight for what they believe in and pursue their desires.

            Since music is a dominant media outlet in modern society, being able to revolutionize music to underline the strong traits of women is a logically powerful tactic. I know personally that I feel a lot more connected to a situation, or understand a concept better if it is put to music. Music has this therapeutic capability that puts many people at ease and opens their mind to new ideas. Thus, music is the perfect channel to spread the idea of powerful women among the society. People are much more open to the ideas represented in a song. This is why many people, out of fear that children and teenagers don’t become aggressive sex-fanatic fiends, criticize controversial songs that emphasize sex or violence. So if people are worried about the messages that are communicated in songs, then why not “kill two birds with one stone” and produce more motivating songs, such as the listed ones above.

            How do you feel about music’s influence on what people believe in? Do you think this is logical? Do people really capture the entire message of a song’s lyrics? Or is it only the catchy tune that draws these audiences to the music?

"Male Owned": Objectification of Women in Online Dating

While flipping through a supercar magazine one day, I came across an advertisement that floored me with its disturbingly apparent sexism. This advertisement was for an online dating site of the name Model Quality Introductions. 

An advertisement for finding your perfect match online is not an uncommon occurrence in today’s society. With everyone’s busy schedule, more and more people are turning to online matchmakers to help them find “the one.” However, the advertisements I have seen for online dating site such as eHarmony.com or match.com feature both men and women, and emphasize the importance of matching based on compatibility.  At Model Quality Introductions, their advertisement made it clear that this is not the case.

 

Boasting that the company is “male owned” and that “no one gets women like we do,” Model Quality Introductions made it apparent that the website was strictly for successful males searching for beautiful women. Although as a woman I found this advertisement to be quite offensive, MQI prides itself on being the “most successful male-owned millionaire matchmaking agency in the country.”

The extent to which the advertisement boasted about their objectification of women struck me as horrendous. The fact that the men “get” women makes it sound like these women are just a product for sale to be picked out by the men—which, essentially, is the case. However, the fact that this is still tolerated and prevalent in society today is a scary one. As for being “male owned,” the website justified that “you cannot hire a woman to do a man’s job,” seeming to demean women even more than they meant to, as I took it to apply to much of the workforce and how women are struggling to attain equality in the workplace.

Another thing I noted: the sexism demonstrated by the placement of the ad is also very apparent. Obviously, a supercar magazine is going to have a primarily male audience, but the design of this advertisement was as if the company believed that no women would ever see it. Did they really think that by placing the ad in a car magazine, no women would ever discover it and be offended by its content? Or did they simply not care? 

Obviously, this company was founded on the premise that it would appeal to millionaire, single men and does not shy away from advertising that fact. But to what extent is this type of industry okay? Sure, like any dating site, the end goal of the company is to foster relationships, but the means by which the company goes about doing this almost reflect prostitution. They create a database of women who meet their standards—only women who are “8s, 9s and 10s”—and instead of a mutual selection process which many other online dating sites advertise, men who make enough money to join the site can scroll through hundreds of pictures of women and choose which ones they wish to have dates with. The way the site justifies this is by explaining that they are just recognizing the different standards that successful men have that are not addressed on regular dating sites. MQI claims, “we start with the outside, and then look at the beauty that lies within,” emphasizing that the most important beauty is not personality, but appearance.

Although in the real world, appearance and physical attraction play roles in fostering relationships, is it okay to market this attraction? I certainly do not think so, especially when these marketing tactics come at the expense of objectifying and demeaning women.

Conscious Storytelling

At the beginning of this class, we talked about how hip-hop artists like Slick Rick often incorporate storytelling in their music. Many artists use this technique simply to entertain their listeners through narrative, but this is not always the case. In the song “Children’s Story,” Slick Rick uses storytelling to address various social problems, thus creating a conscious hip-hop track. In the song, Slick Rick uses the story of a young boy to show how one bad decision can send a person’s life down the wrong path.

 

In “Children’s Story,” Slick Rick tells the story of a young boy whose life spirals downhill after his friend influences him to start robbing people. Slick Rick describes the boy as “lil’” and “misled,” depicting the boy as a naïve and innocent figure. He also explains how the boy can’t stop robbing people and how it is “like he [has] a disease,” thus placing the boy’s bad decisions beyond his power. As the boy’s life escalates out of his control, Slick Rick shows the boy struggle with his conscience. For example, when the kid puts his gun up to a pregnant lady, he realizes that “deep in his heart he knew he was wrong/so he let the lady go and he starts to run on.” Throughout the song, Slick Rick portrays the main character as an innocent boy to make it clear that he is not a bad person but rather “just another case about the wrong path.” Representing the boy in this way helps Slick Rick ultimately deliver his message that just one wrong choice can lead a person’s life in a bad direction.

While sending this message to his listeners, Slick Rick also addresses many social issues such as poverty, burglary, violence, and drugs. Although he doesn’t discuss these issues directly, he weaves them into his storyline and displays them in his narrative. In my opinion, combining storytelling with social issues is an interesting yet successful approach that strays away from most conscious hip-hop. This new approach shows that conscious hip-hop does not always need to be solemn or personal, address real life events, or rally a call to action. Conscious rap comes in various forms and, as demonstrated in this song, can present social issues in creative ways. One of these creative ways is through storytelling, which Slick Rick proves to be an important tool in hip-hop. Storytelling is an easy way for artists to create visuals that can connect to their listeners, and I believe that using this method can be a very effective way to stress the messages and the issues presented in conscious rap.

Here’s one question to think about: What do you think is more effective—Slick Rick’s use of storytelling to present social issues or the traditional approach used in most conscious hip-hop tracks?