Rape Culture, Video Games, and Extreme Gendering

Recently a debate occurred on The Young Turks (and no doubt elsewhere around the web) as to the causes of today’s teen rape culture. “Rape culture,” for the uninformed, refers to the callous disregard some people (male and female alike) have for the act of rape. Lately, the news media has been inundated with stories of teen girls being raped and later “slut-shamed” as a consequence. (If words and names like “Steubenville Rape,” “Audrie Pott,” and “Rehtaeh Parsons” mean nothing to you, then I suggest you do a bit of Googling.)

The journalists in the video argue whether video game culture is the source—or one of the sources—of rape culture. Two correspondents who are also gamers argue that teenage use of words like “rape” and “gay” on Xbox Live are not as meaningful as the non-gamers are wanting to believe. The non-gamers disagree, and the assumption continues that video games, which increase aggression and contain violence, are prompting, if not actively promoting, teen rape culture.

I believe the crew at TYT—and all of those who agree with them, which likely encompasses the majority of those talking about rape culture in the media right now—are going about this all wrong. Video games are not a source of rape culture. They are merely a symptom.

You're going to make me save the entire galaxy ... in boob armor?

Video games have a problem with gender. The majority of video game companies are consistently urged to create and market their product to a demographic that does not include female gamers, gamers of color, older gamers, or LGBT gamers—all of whom exist and exist in tremendous numbers. (Combined, I would even suggest that they outnumber the stereotypical teenaged, white, straight, male gamer.) In RPGs (“role-playing games”) that allow the player to create a character of either gender, the male version of that character is almost always used in advertising campaigns. Female characters in video games are often underdressed or inappropriately dressed when compared to their fully-armored male companions. Female characters may serve as token members of a team (“the lone female soldier”), may be excluded from combat (“the female pilot/technician”), or may serve as mere objects/prizes to be rescued (“the princess”). All of this is true, and projects like Anita Sarkeesian’s cover the topic well.

 But what tends to receive far more coverage (understandably so) is how real-life female gamers—not characters—are treated by their male counterparts. It would likely come as no surprise to non-gamers that female players take some ribbing from male gamers when they attempt to enter the traditionally masculine sphere of video gaming. But most are probably unaware that this “ribbing” often goes far beyond insecure teasing. See “Fat, Ugly, or Slutty” for more specific examples, and understand that this is not unusual—it is common. It is the norm.

Because that's why girls play games.

When male gamers joke about raping their opponents, or when they send lewd and violent messages to female gamers, they are evidencing symptoms of a sickness currently engulfing our culture. It is the sickness of extreme gendering.

Extreme gendering starts at an early age. Companies like Disney market toys and other products exclusively for one gender or another. They tap into childhood insecurities about identity and give children something to cling to and identify with: gender. A child who may have never thought of him or herself as “different” may be overwhelmed around the age of 3, 4, or 5, upon first entering pre-school or school and being thrust among so many other children. Children are told early on by corporations that they are either GIRLS or BOYS; this influences their behavior, their speech, their clothing, their method of playing, even the way they are supposed to think. Parents who perpetuate this myth of extreme gendering do their children a disservice, but they can hardly be blamed, or at least fully blamed. A child would have to be raised in a vacuum to escape what I will point blank refer to as indoctrination. Companies are making billions off of convincing parents and children that boys and girls not only want but NEED certain (and wildly different) products.

Children thus grow up believing that they are incredibly different from fully half of the rest of the population. I think this has gone far beyond the “boys have cooties” or “no girls allowed!” form of play that my generation (and countless generations before mine) engaged in. When you believe you are so different from another person that the two of you have nothing in common, indeed, that her brain even works differently than your own, then how can you respect her in the same way as you would respect another of your “kind”? Thus harming a girl is different from harming a boy. A girl’s body is different from a boy’s body. And doing a “girl” thing (boy-on-girl rape) to a boy is hence deeply humiliating for the receiving boy. Hence why “rape” is both an ultimate insult in a multiplayer environment and yet equally so a casual one.

I think we as a culture need to take a step back and think about how we both present and understand gender. Gender is a social construct; sex is biological. Biological differences between sexes should be studied and presented to young people in the form of comprehensive sex education. Girls’ bodies should not be a mystery to boys, nor should boys’ bodies be a mystery to girls. But our similarities should be emphasized as often as our subtle differences; we are all thinking, feeling human beings, and our inherent sameness as a species makes us all equally worthy of love and respect.

Anya has no bra. Anya needs no bra.

Rape is about power.

Rape is not about sex. Teen boys do not rape unconscious teen girls and then send pictures of the act to all of their friends because they are horny. They do so to express power. Power can only be exerted over another individual when the powerful feels he is inherently better, inherently different, from the one he has overpowered. A boy does not rape someone he respects.

There’s quite a bit more to say about this topic, but I think I’ll end it here for today.

Let’s think about how what we say and what we do demonstrates to our kids about gender. Let’s examine how WE see gender. Let’s not allow corporations to convince our children that they are so different from one another that they need not respect one another—that one body is so radically different from another.

Pixar's Brave and the Fear of Romance

New information just released about Pixar's latest, BRAVE: it seems the movie's heroine, Merida, won't be going the way of the Disney Princess.

An article at TIME tells us that "This is a fairy tale without romance."  Instead, the focus of the narrative will be on Merida's desire for adventure in favor of romance.  While her mother wants to keep up the tradition of having Merida marry a prince, Merida isn't listening.  The article insists that this is more a story about a girl defying her mother, something to which all teenage girls should be able to relate.

(Wait -- where have I seen that before?)

Ready for adventure -- no man required.

Pixar seems almost gleeful about revealing this.  I'm fine with a girl not needing romance in her adventure.  I mean, boys can have adventures without romance, right?  Well, there was Dreamworks' HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON.  A boy, his dragon, an adventure.  And a little bit of romance.  Well, and there was Pixar's own WALL-E.  A (boy) robot, a spaceship, an adventure.  Oh and a (girl) robot he has a massive crush on.  

Not romantic AT ALL.

Does removing romance from a girl's narrative like BRAVE suggest that girls must eschew romance in order to "go on adventures" and be "just like the boys"?  Can't a strong girl save the day and get the boy, too?

Small wonder why Pixar seem so proud of themselves.  The revulsion many contemporary mothers, grandmothers, and aunts feel towards the Disney Princesses is finally beginning to have an impact on the market.  Even Disney itself has promised to stop making fairy tale films.  (Presumably, "romance" and "fairy tale" go hand in hand for Disney.)

What do you think?  Is the film sending girls the wrong message?  Isn't desire a part of growing up?  Can girls really not have their cake—and eat it, too? 

Misadventures in Dubbing: The Borrower Arrietty

After seeing the American dub of the Studio Ghibli film "Kari-gurashi no Arietti," or "The Borrower Arrietty," (distributed by Disney in English as "The Secret World of Arrietty"), I was left feeling as if I'd watched and understood only about 80% of what I knew deep down had to be a more than decent film.  I have always found Studio Ghibli films to be horrendously dubbed, and this one was really no exception.  So I did my best to hunt down the original Japanese version of the film.

Here is a list of the differences I noticed -- but take these notations with a grain of salt.  I would probably have to return to the theatre and rewatch the American dub to be absolutely certain about some of these:

Arrietty

(1) Japanese:
The most obvious difference is in the character of Shou.  "Shou" is a common Japanese name for a boy.

(1) American:
Shou's name was changed to "Shawn" for the American dub.  This seems a rather bizarre attempt to Anglicize a character who is in all other respects clearly Japanese.  There are numerous instances of books, products, papers, and other items bearing Japanese lettering.  Shou/Shawn eats with chopsticks in several dinner scenes, and both he and Haru (the housekeeper) leave their outside shoes at the door and wear slippers indoors (a uniquely Japanese custom).  Why change nothing but the name?  Niya the cat also receives a name change: Nina.

(2) Japanese:
In the Japanese version, Pod is clearly disappointed in Arrietty's botched first borrowing.  When he catches her prowling around inside the walls of the big house, he chastises her quite sternly, earning an obedient apology from her.

(2) American:
In the American version, Pod (voiced quite excellently by Will Arnett, whose wife, Amy Poehler, voices Homily, Pod's wife and Arrietty's mother) is a kind and forgiving man who even boosts Arrietty's confidence by congratulating her on not panicking when Shawn spots her during their midnight run.  This comforting/congratulatory dialogue replaces a more mundane exchange in the Japanese version.

Shou

(3) Japanese:
A topic is broached in the original version that doesn't appear in the American one: divorce.  It is revealed that Shou's parents are divorced; his father is no longer in the picture, and his mother is chastised by his mother's aunt ("Aunt Sadako") for leaving for a business trip and neglecting her sickly child.

(3) American:
Here there is no mention of divorce.  Shou simply reveals to Arrietty that his parents are too busy to take care of him.

(4) Japanese:
Pod and Homily share a rather cryptic discussion about a big "change" that must occur now that Arrietty has been seen by the "beans."  The audience is kept in the dark until Arrietty herself figures out that her parents are planning to move.

(4) American:
The original cryptic discussion between Pod and Homily is dubbed so that audiences are immediately aware that the family intends to move.  It's unclear if Arrietty is also made aware of this, and that it was never a secret to begin with, perhaps suggesting that Pod and Homily, as kind, loving parents, would never keep a secret from their daughter.

(5) Japanese:
In a pivotal scene between Shou and Arrietty, Shou blithely speculates that Arrietty's entire species is on the verge of extinction.  He thoughtlessly ignores Arrietty's insistence that he stop, seemingly unaware that his words are hurtful to her.  When he finally does apologize, he reveals that he is the one who is going to become extinct (he reveals he is going to die because of his poor health).  Shou's selfishness and seeming inability to acknowledge Arrietty as a fellow thinking, feeling (albeit small) human being is juxtaposed with his  childish and very real fear of dying.  In essense, he is a boy who copes with his own mortality by reveling in an obsession with death.

(5) American:
Shawn does not seem to share Shou's deep obsession with death, and he is more considerate of Arrietty's feelings.  In the Japanese version, he reveals that he wishes to protect her (not for her sake, but for his own, as he's been weak all his life and wants to feel useful).  This part of the conversation is left out in the dub.

(6) Japanese:
In the final scene, Arrietty gives Shou her hair pin for luck.  She assures him that he did, in fact, protect her.  Shou looks happy and relieved and promises that he will never forget her.  The film ends with images of Arrietty sailing down the river with Spiller (a semi-wild borrower who appears to have a crush on her).  The viewer is led to believe that Shou's morbid predictions were, in fact, mere selfish adolescent speculation: clearly, Arrietty and Spiller's budding romance suggests that the borrower species will carry on.  Shou's own future is left in doubt.  Did he die after his operation the way he believed he would?

(6) American:
Arrietty tells Shawn she is giving him her hair pin so he'll remember her.  He assures her that he will.  There is no mention of him having protected her since the original conversation about protection never took place.  Shawn's motives for helping Arrietty remain unanswered, causing his character to lack a fair bit of depth.  As Arrietty and Spiller sail down the river, Shawn's voice assures the audience that he did, in fact, survive the operation, and now stands a year later remembering his friendship with Arrietty.  Because Shawn also opened the narrative, he in effect frames it, somewhat confusing the audience as to who the hero of this story really is.

Homily, Pod, and Arrietty

My thoughts about these differences are mixed.  I'm sure it's apparent that many of the changes were made for the supposed benefit of American child audiences.  Touchy subjects like divorce and morbidity were removed.  Arrietty's father's stern demeanor was softened.  Shou becomes the less self-absorbed, but otherwise personality-less Shawn.

But I'm left wondering about the true root behind the various changes made.  Do we have a situation wherein certain material can be considered suitable for Japanese children but not American children?  Or is "The Borrower Arrietty" simply aimed at a slightly older audience than "The Secret World of Arrietty"?  The previews shown in the theatre clearly suggest that advertisers believe they are marketing to a very young audience.  Is it simply the American belief that all animated films are by nature created solely for very young children?  But films like "Shrek" and its sequels should have put such thoughts to rest.  Then again, "Shrek" was sternly criticized for the adult and crude humor that many felt was inappropriate for a child audience.

As usual, I don't have any definitive conclusions to make.  I wonder how others have felt about either version of the film.  Did anyone else wonder at Shawn's motivations?  Am I the only one who thought his framing of the narrative (when it was Arrietty's name in the title, not his!) felt a bit off?

On a personal note, it should come as no surprise that the voice acting and dialogue in the Japanese version are vastly superior to the American version.  I certainly intend to purchase the DVD when it comes out, and I more than likely will never watch the American dub again.


FYI: Do check out this article by Tim Maughan over at Tor.com.  Maughan talks about the film as an adaptation of Mary Norton's book and about the film's young director, a possible successor to the brilliant but sadly aging Hayao Miyazaki.

Trouble in Paradise: The Dystopian Romance

Dystopias are all the rage now in YA literature.  Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games trilogy did for the teen dysoptia what Stephanie Meyer's Twilight series (I must admit I refuse to refer to it as a "saga") did for paranormal romance.  And if you think that's a compliment...

Not to belittle Meyer's or Collins' efforts.  But Good Books do not always start Good Trends.  Or rather, sometimes Pretty Good or even Pretty Decent Books (says the girl who hasn't published a darn thing, save the occasional academic article) sell so well that they start mind-bogglingly dull trends. Seen on girl fall in love with a vampire, seen 'em all.

Admittedly, sometimes Good Books do start Good Trends.  Take Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy.  It basically spawned an entire genre.  Some might call that genre "high fantasy" or "sword and sorcery fantasy," but the truth is that those are branches of a single genre (fantasy) that was essentially breathed into being by Tolkien.  Yes, there were fairy tales, there was Jules Verne, there was myth.  But then there was Tolkien.

And there is fantasy in Twilight, too.  (Something about werewolves and vampires?  To be honest, I haven't read them.)  And there is Twilight in the Hunger Games.

I'm talking, of course, about the love triangle.  My sister tells me the love triangle is fairly nonexistent in the books; it's only in the movies that the Jacob/Bella/Edward triangle exists.  I'm skeptical of this.  I think what she means to imply is that Bella in the book never cares for Jacob in the way that she cares for Edward.  But the quintessential elements of the love triangle still exist: one girl, desired equally by two different boys.  

The "Who will she choose?" element is perhaps a figment of the film adaptation's imagination, but nevertheless, this, too, has influenced YA to a fairly significant degree.  The Hunger Games boasts the Peeta/Katniss/Gale love triangle; fans have even adopted Twilight fandom lingo and refer to themselves as "Team Peeta" or "Team Gale," despite the fact that Katniss very definitively ends up with only one of the boys at the trilogy's conclusion.  Such is the nature of fandom, which routinely exerts the ultimate power of reader response in the guise of fanfiction, fanart, and other forms of fan-created artistic expression.  Allie Condie's Matched, a dystopian romance -in truth, more of a romance with a hint of dystopia- boasts a love triangle of its own.  So does Cassandra Clare's Clockwork Angel (another paranormal romance, not a dystopia).  Of course, not all teen dystopias have love triangles (Veronica Roth's Divergent, for example), but many do.  Many do not necessarily tickle their toes in the love triangle pool, so to speak, but still include a heavy dose of romance as the premise for their so-called dystopic narratives.  

Recently, it was announced that the CW will begin airing a series called "The Selection" based on Kiera Cass's trilogy by the same name.  The premise is eerily similar to one of my favorite novels, Shannon Hale's Princess Academy.  (Interesting fact: Hale once turned down an opportunity to let Matel make the book into a Barbie cartoon movie.)  In both stories, a group of girls is promised the opportunity to marry a prince; of course, only one will be chosen.  The MTV article calls "The Selection" "The Bachelor" with a dystopian twist."  

And that's essentially what the teen dystopia has become: romance with a dystopian twist.  Book publishers obviously think that girls prefer to take their science fiction, their fantasy, their paranormal narratives, with more than a dash of romance.  No, girls want full blown (age appropriate) Harlequins with only a pinch of milieu, a dash of plot, a hint of narrative.  

It's hard to argue with them when the books they produce sell so well.  And perhaps I should be chided for judging a book by its cover - or its TV pilot.

Toddlers in Tiaras -- Sofia the First

Disney is set to induct its newest member into the Disney Princess pantheon: Sofia the First.

An article at Deadline informs us that Sofia's TV movie will air Fall 2012 and will be followed by a TV series in Spring 2013. Sofia will be the first Disney Princess who is the same age as her intended audience: around 4-6 years old, if her picture is anything to go by. Many parents, however, can attest that Disney Princess mania often begins much, much earlier.

Sofia is allegedly a commoner whose mother married a king, thus making her a princess. A Disney exec says this is to make Sofia more "relatable" to viewers, apparently conveniently forgetting that neither Tiana, Belle, nor Mulan were born princesses either. And poor Mulan even made the mistake of marrying a soldier, so no tiara for her.

Of course, Disney can't marry off a six-year-old, so Sofia's mother has to take the fall for her. Disney wants to make a character young viewers can relate to, but I'm not sure how many American children are lucky enough to have parents who marry into royalty.

The truth is that Disney is constantly looking for more ways to milk its Disney Princess brand (and for good reason, too ... it earns approximately 4 billion dollars a year). Disney keep saying they're turning away from princesses, but the allure of marketability keeps drawing them back.

Meanwhile, we're all forced to suffer through yet another Hollywood adaptation of a princess narrative. I never thought I'd say this, but ... Disney, please come back!

Just not like this.

When I was a boy

I love, love, love Melissa Bollow Tempel's article in Rethinking Schools about teaching and encouraging gender variance in the classroom. Tempel talks about both her experiences as a mother and a teacher in dealing with children who defy gender stereotype. Her primary example is a student named Allison who prefers to go by "Alie." While Alie identifies as a girl, she is not comfortable appearing as one. Does this mean Alie secretly wants to be a boy?

If a girl dresses as a boy, does that mean she is transgender or lesbian? Sadly, few people understand the difference between gender identity and sexuality. Parents forbid boys from playing with dolls, wearing dresses, or painting their nails hot pink, not because they're afraid other children will ridicule these young gender deviants—though that is inevitably the excuse that is given—but because they fear such behavior can influence a child's sexuality.

Forward-thinking teachers and parents like Tempel have so much to undo when they broach the topic of gender variance with young children. Children are not born homophobic, nor are they born to reach for gender-specific toys and clothing. These learned behaviors lead to even more hate and discrimination outside of the classroom, and cause the gulf between genders to only widen.

How often do we conform to learned gender behavior in our everyday lives? As Tempel points out, how many teachers ask children to line up according to gender. "Boys in this line and girls in this one!" "Whites in this one and Blacks and Browns in this one!" "Christians in this one and Non-Christians in this one!" Why are we so accepting of human variance—in many case, we even joyfully celebrate our differences, and rightly so—except when it comes to gender?

As beautiful as books like William's Doll and The Paper Bag Princess are, I find it sad that there is such a great need for these kinds of books. Why deny a child who wants to take on the pretend roll of a parent, to nurture and love a doll? Why discourage another child from being brave and adventurous simply because she is a girl?

Toy makers capitalize on young children's early identity crises and advertise to them (in place of their parents), convincing them that if they wish to be "normal" then they had best play only with those toys that are gender appropriate. But the blame cannot be placed solely at the feet of companies like Disney, whose brilliant Disney Princess marketing brand has earned them in excess of 4 billion dollars. We can either wait for our children to be as brave as Alie, who chose on her own to become a gender deviant ... or we can teach children to be brave. We can show them that men can wear nail polish and women can drive Harley's. We can explain that sometimes boys can have boyfriends, and that it's no different or better than boys having girlfriends ... or girls having girlfriends, too.

In parting, the article reminded me of a song I used to love (and still love): "When I was a boy" by Dar Williams. Enjoy: YouTube

When Authors Attack -- the politics of children's literature

Today, word came through the Twitterverse that author Jane Yolen was not at all pleased when pro-Tea Party and anti-library senator Ron Johnson opted to read her book How Do Dinosaurs Clean Their Rooms? to an unsuspecting group of children. And I use the word "unsuspecting" in the sense that these children and their parents (and their surrounding community) probably have no idea that their beloved library is constantly on the verge of closing in these dire economic times.

When she learned of the senator's book choice, Yolen reportedly responded:

I wish he would help kids and not cut those programs that help them, rather than just reading a book chosen for him, and written by a progressive Massachusetts liberal like me.

You get 'im, Jane.

Check out the Daily Kos piece about the row between senator and award-winning author here: Jane Yolen Under Attack. And, in case you're curious, find out what more Yolen had to say on the subject in this article by Shawn Doherty.

This is obviously an issue close to Yolen's heart (as it is to us all, no doubt). This past May she penned another little note, this time to the Los Angeles Unified School District: LINK.

This is a year when U.S. schools have already banned 20 books from their libraries. Jane Yolen, Philip Pullman, et al. notwithstanding, how much does this country truly care about its libraries? As the spokesperson for the LA school district superintendent responded, "There is not an area in the school district that has not been cut."

This is not a political blog. But when politics worms its way into the world of children's literature in such a dastardly and despicable way, how can we ignore it? And what, if anything, can be done about it?