KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
Link: http://www.otal.umd.edu/wmst498k/kk14/cartoon7.html
Three women from the Batman cartoon were analyzed here in a way that caught my eye.
Poison Ivy:
"Pamela Isley, a.k.a. Poison Ivy, only loosely applies to the Brat stereotype. Yes, she is extremely moody and self-centered. She does believe that only she and those who agree with her are right. She will go as far as to try to kill someone who disagrees with her. But, she is a villain. Some of her negative traits have to be credited to the fact that she's a "bad guy" and not necessarily because she's a woman."
Harley Quinn:
"Although she can defend herself a little more than the traditional Dumb Inhibitor, she still lacks smarts and is very annoying. She is easily manipulated. Harley doesn't seem to know what to do unless her boss, the Joker, tells her. She is often caught and goofs up more than the average Batman female. Though she obviously isn't that bright, she's still not as bad as some D.I.'s I've seen. The Joker would have killed her a long time ago otherwise."
Batgirl:
"She is a classic Know-it-all. Barbara Gordon, the commissioner's daughter, has taken it upon herself to join Batman and Robin as they fight crime. She is smart and can defend herself, but she often makes bad decisions. Batman and Robin are adamant about not wanting or needing her help, but they are usually grateful for her assistance at the end of the episode."
A page summary:
"Batman and Crying Freeman have a lot in common. They both attract women. Both have more female characters than average, and they are both very successful. Also, most of the women in both Batman and Crying Freeman are drawn with unrealistic body shapes. Crying Freeman has one exception which is his extremely overweight sister, Ivory Fan.
<snip>
Both Batman and Crying Freeman stick with the stereotypes described above. This is not to say that they are bad cartoons. They are well drawn and have good plots and characters. However, they are also good examples of how negative images of females are portrayed in animation."
Note: I've never heard of Crying Freeman and left that information out because it doesn't have the circulation that Batman does. Batman is sufficient for the purposes of discussion.
I can't really decide if this is feminist rhetoric getting in the way of characterizations in fiction, or if this is someone with too much time on her hands. I know a lot of women agree with the author here, but I'm not particularly one of them. I think this is classic overanalyzation of something with attributiation of things that simply aren't there.
Most of the characters that are analyzed aren't main characters, their supporting characters and as such don't get as much development. Batman is fully rounded because he's the protagonist. Robin gets a lot of development, and therefore more personality facets, because he's always hanging around Batman. Batgirl doesn't get as much because she's a part-time sidekick.
The villains usually get short shrift developmentally because their activities are explained by things like psychosis. They've got a history about why they're in crime and most of the time the viewer/reader spends with them is to see what nefarious scheme they are up to, not to develop the character's other non-criminally oriented activities.
We will see Batman at a party hobknobbing, or we'll see him agonizing over his duality. We'll see the Joker doing dirty deeds. Occasionally we'll get a flash of non-crime related things, but generally the antagonist exists for the protagonist, not as someone by themselves.
Tertiary characters like Harley Quinn are given even less development. We're told her history and her descent into crime, but we don't know what she does with her spare time. It doesn't move the plot.
So when people analyze a character like Harley Quinn and call her a "stereotype" I often wonder if they understand how fiction is put together and why Harley Quinn is a tertiary character and not a stereotype.
She's not developed enough to have a full personality to psychoanalyze, so how can she be stereotyped as a stereotype?
What do you think? Is this kind of analyzation of television, books, comics, movies, errata helpful and/or necessary or is it witchhunting and/or detrimental? Why do you think that? You can pick your own positive or negative words and connotations, you don't have to choose one of my aribitrary ones.
Three women from the Batman cartoon were analyzed here in a way that caught my eye.
Poison Ivy:
"Pamela Isley, a.k.a. Poison Ivy, only loosely applies to the Brat stereotype. Yes, she is extremely moody and self-centered. She does believe that only she and those who agree with her are right. She will go as far as to try to kill someone who disagrees with her. But, she is a villain. Some of her negative traits have to be credited to the fact that she's a "bad guy" and not necessarily because she's a woman."
Harley Quinn:
"Although she can defend herself a little more than the traditional Dumb Inhibitor, she still lacks smarts and is very annoying. She is easily manipulated. Harley doesn't seem to know what to do unless her boss, the Joker, tells her. She is often caught and goofs up more than the average Batman female. Though she obviously isn't that bright, she's still not as bad as some D.I.'s I've seen. The Joker would have killed her a long time ago otherwise."
Batgirl:
"She is a classic Know-it-all. Barbara Gordon, the commissioner's daughter, has taken it upon herself to join Batman and Robin as they fight crime. She is smart and can defend herself, but she often makes bad decisions. Batman and Robin are adamant about not wanting or needing her help, but they are usually grateful for her assistance at the end of the episode."
A page summary:
"Batman and Crying Freeman have a lot in common. They both attract women. Both have more female characters than average, and they are both very successful. Also, most of the women in both Batman and Crying Freeman are drawn with unrealistic body shapes. Crying Freeman has one exception which is his extremely overweight sister, Ivory Fan.
<snip>
Both Batman and Crying Freeman stick with the stereotypes described above. This is not to say that they are bad cartoons. They are well drawn and have good plots and characters. However, they are also good examples of how negative images of females are portrayed in animation."
Note: I've never heard of Crying Freeman and left that information out because it doesn't have the circulation that Batman does. Batman is sufficient for the purposes of discussion.
I can't really decide if this is feminist rhetoric getting in the way of characterizations in fiction, or if this is someone with too much time on her hands. I know a lot of women agree with the author here, but I'm not particularly one of them. I think this is classic overanalyzation of something with attributiation of things that simply aren't there.
Most of the characters that are analyzed aren't main characters, their supporting characters and as such don't get as much development. Batman is fully rounded because he's the protagonist. Robin gets a lot of development, and therefore more personality facets, because he's always hanging around Batman. Batgirl doesn't get as much because she's a part-time sidekick.
The villains usually get short shrift developmentally because their activities are explained by things like psychosis. They've got a history about why they're in crime and most of the time the viewer/reader spends with them is to see what nefarious scheme they are up to, not to develop the character's other non-criminally oriented activities.
We will see Batman at a party hobknobbing, or we'll see him agonizing over his duality. We'll see the Joker doing dirty deeds. Occasionally we'll get a flash of non-crime related things, but generally the antagonist exists for the protagonist, not as someone by themselves.
Tertiary characters like Harley Quinn are given even less development. We're told her history and her descent into crime, but we don't know what she does with her spare time. It doesn't move the plot.
So when people analyze a character like Harley Quinn and call her a "stereotype" I often wonder if they understand how fiction is put together and why Harley Quinn is a tertiary character and not a stereotype.
She's not developed enough to have a full personality to psychoanalyze, so how can she be stereotyped as a stereotype?
What do you think? Is this kind of analyzation of television, books, comics, movies, errata helpful and/or necessary or is it witchhunting and/or detrimental? Why do you think that? You can pick your own positive or negative words and connotations, you don't have to choose one of my aribitrary ones.
