“Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s
G-Rated Films”, written by Karin A. Marin and Emily Kazyak, reviews and analyzes
the construction and portrayal of heterosexuality and heteronormativity in
children’s media. Many films contain content which enforces the obsessive
creation of romantic heterosexual relationships, and children’s movies even go
beyond portraying the typical existence of heteronormativity by creating plot
lines in which characters’ romantic, heterosexual relationships are “special”, “magical”,
superior to other relationships, and even sometimes so “powerful” that they can
settle conflicts and bring peace to the land (158). These G-rated films also have
content related to: reinforcement of cis-gender norms, sexual objectification
of women’s bodies, “exoticized” portray of women of color (155), sexual and “sexist
language” and behaviors (162).
There are so many interesting things this article covers,
ranging from the heterosexiness of characters which reinforces heterosexual
desire to the framing of romantic scenes in nature settings as if to establish
that romantic heterosexual relationships are completely normal, natural, and correct.
Many of the popular media already produced doesn't really focus
on any non-hetero relationships, such as strong friendships, relationships
between siblings, or even platonic partnerships. Recently, though, a few movies
that have been released that are starting to change the trends of
heteronormative ideals in children’s films, such as the strong female
characters with major plot lines focusing on motherly and sisterly
relationships in the Disney movies “Brave” and “Frozen” (respectively). But are
these two films enough? Many of the merchandise available for these films strip
the uniqueness and strength of the characters away and instead emphasize on the
characters feminine aspects and the heterosexy appeal of these movies, continuously
enforcing heteronormative ideas in the lives of children. What I find to be
especially damaging about these children’s movies is that the media is such an
influential tool, and feeding consumers with inflated ideas of how
relationships are supposed to function and inappropriate ways of how people are
supposed to behave and treat others is creating a dysfunctional society. How
are people supposed to know that cat calling and objectifying women’s bodies is
unacceptable if the media and society portray it as a normal, even proper
action? I also think it really interesting how heteronormativity defines how we
establish “acceptable” content in the media. As recapped in the article, according
to the Motion Picture Association of America, “General Audience” ratings
contain “no nudity, sex scenes or drug use” and are suitable for people of all
ages (154). Because of what our society deems normal, Disney movies with sexual
content get G-ratings while many films receive higher ratings just because they
contain non-heteronormative content. These ratings don’t provide a good outline
for media subjects and can be misleading.
Should there be a different set of standards when rating
films/should there be a different description of the content present in G-rated
films?
How else is heteronormativity constructed and demonstrated
in children’s films?
I found the discussion of other types of relationships in this piece to be particularly interesting. Martin and Kayzak explain that friendships are shown to be subordinate relationships in these children's movies. There are some male-female relationships but they often provide comic relief and are explicitly non-romantic as the friends are often of different species. Male friendships were similarly used for comic relief. But what I found most interesting was that there were essentially no female friendships. There were mother-daughter like bonds but none of these movies had equal-partner female friends. It made me wonder if any of these movies passed the Bechdel test-- are there female characters, who talk to each other, about something that is not a man? My guess is no. This plays into the construction of heteronormativity--it constructs a pattern where women's only purpose is to find heteronormative love, and that this is all they can talk about even to each other.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this article, I couldn't help but think of the issues of representation in popular media, especially as it relates to media consumed by children. This article speaks to how heterosexuality is constructed as the end-all be-all in media directed towards children, but less so about how the lack of queerness further creates an othering effect. Media is so pervasive in today's society that to not be represented is a form of social erasure, an implication that if a story is not being told, it is because it is either dangerous to tell or not worth telling. If children see nothing but heterosexual relationships depicted in media, especially heterosexual relationships that are depicted with such force and power, they begin to wonder if other kinds of attraction are somehow bad, strange, or wrong. Young children who have already come to recognize their non-heterosexual attraction are left with a dearth of popular characters to look up to and a strong message from the media that who they are is incorrect, and I can't imagine how damaging that must be.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, what of children who grow up on media that depicts heteroromantic, heterosexual attraction (albeit in tamer ways) as the normal and commonplace, and then later identify as aromantic or asexual? Teenagers and adults who identify on the ace spectrum are constantly told by society that they are "broken" in some way (which is distinctly untrue), and popular children's media only reinforces that fact by downplaying other extremely important relationships (familial, friendship) as less important than the all-powerful heteroromantic, heterosexual relationship.
(I made a previous comment but I think it deleted itself, so I'll reprise here)
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting was the sexualization of the girls of color. These are girls, and yet within the media they are young women. There was a popular image floating around the internet a while back with all the ages of the Disney princesses; Jasmine was just 15, Pocahontas and Mulan were a little older at 16, and Esmeralda was oldest at 19. Even though these may seem old and "grown-up" to the targeted audience, we must remember that adults---grown men---made the decision to animate teenage girls "sexily" and code them so obviously as "exotic". It brings up the importance of intersectionality when talking about heteronormativity and imposed heterosexuality, that these things don't exist in a vacuum. There are confounding factors that should be looked at; we don't want to be like the numerous scholars in the Rich reading who never mentioned the pink, lesbian elephant in the room.
Seeing the obsession that hollywood has with hetero love interests in children's movies is upsetting on multiple levels. On the surface you can note the way that the "standard" of heterosexuality is enforced at a young age. Underneath that lies the strong message that romantic love is the staple for human fulfillment; it is literally so strong that it can break curses and fix world problems. Let's not forget the way that romantic love is so restricted that it is only acceptable with a man and a woman in very particular circumstances in which, honestly, the "love" experienced seems more like dream-like infatuation. In many disney movies, the "prince charming" is the first ever guy to enter the young princess' life. The love found is so circumstantial that it becomes apparent that most any guy could come along and would probably expect to find reciprocated feelings, based on the fact that they are spending time together. This cliche use of "love at first contact" leaves no room for the development of deeper mental connections or (god forbid) friendship between a man and a woman. Which brings me to the most deeply upsetting part of the heterosexual media agenda; the belittlement of friendship. Past tv shows for drooling toddlers, from an incredibly young age, almost all mainstream media contains flirtation and romance between men and women. Rarely there will be homoromantic flirtation, but this is further stigmatized when it turns out to be a joke or simple queerbaiting. The point is that it is so rare to see a deep plotline that values friendship or the self over romance that consumers internalize the prioritization of romantic love over friendship and the self. We are in a generation that teaches if you are alone you must be unwanted, and if you are with someone you are instantly fulfilled. A really nice example of film that analyzes the modern obsession with both sex and romance as abstract ideas is the piece Don Jon. In the film the porn addict Don Jon dates Barbara, who at first seems lovely but is then revealed to herself be obsessed with romantic comedies and this idealized version of what love is. The current devaluation of the self and of supportive and deep relationships is insidious and leads to most people having trouble finding and keeping partners.
ReplyDeleteI like the statement made earlier in the the reading that heteronormativity not only regulates those outside of its realm, but those within it. The disney princess movies that they talked about were particularly interesting. Sure, the females are the main or title characters, but they still have no power. The only powers they can have within their heteronormative plot lines are beauty, sexiness, coquettishness. Even the 90s disney movies seem like they are modeled after 1950s PSA's telling women how to behave in order to attract men. The man is the key to their success and happiness. Also, a side note: it is interesting how the movies with kids as the main character (rugrats, polar express) or animals who are children (nemo) have little to no mention of hetero-romantic story lines.
ReplyDeleteOne thing a lot of people here (and the article) touched upon, but not named, is the exaggerated value of romantic relationships compared to familial/platonic relationships. I would go so far as to call this erasure for asexuals and aromantics. So not only do these films erase gay and lesbian romantic relationships (and even women to women friendships) it also erases an often forgotten group of people (one that is even ignored within queer media).
ReplyDeleteOne other thing that I noted was that the article backtracked on itself a couple of times by saying that they "cannot know what understandings and interpretations children might take away from these films." This may be true in how they conducted their research, but there is evidence to support their claims that children understand and absorb media and its messages. For example, a very popular youtube channel (with almost 10 million subscribers) called TheFineBros does a segment called "Kids react to..." where they show kids a video and then ask them questions about what they watched. One episode is dedicated to showing the kids a proposal between 2 men and another between 2 women (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJxnYgP6D8).
From that video it is very clear that kids as young as 3 have already learned what is "okay" or "normal."
(My comment seems to have deleted itself so I'll post it again)
DeleteRe: Article backtracking on itself
I also picked up on that. Because of this backtracking, I think that the article really understated the effect that such media has on children. Not only do children absorb the messages that these movies relay to them, but these ideas are also re-enacted and replicated by children through play. Shortly after major Disney movies are released, for example, the Disney empire puts toys, halloween costumes, etc. on the market which are very popular and allow children to kind of recreate the movies and their characters, which further ingrains ideas about hetero-romantic love in children and contributes to their understanding of them.
I definitely agree with the potential effects on aromantics and asexuals. Directors and writers are often pushed to include a romance in a story that doesn't necessarily need one. How to Train Your Dragon, though a great movie, changed many aspects from the book; one of them being the addition of the character Astrid as a romantic interest for Hiccup. The romance is added to make the film more appealing or engaging for its audience -- its audience presumed to be allosexual. When a character is not "paired off" in a movie, it's seen as an open story line that can be used in a sequel (e.g. Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 with Quasimodo and Mulan 2 with Yao, Li, and Chien Po). This gives off the idea that a character isn't complete until they have a romantic relationship. It also often leads to the creation of female characters whose sole purpose is to be the love interest of a male character
DeleteI was super glad to read this because I had this thought actually recently, I had gone to see the LEGO Movie with my boyfriend (grew up on LEGOs, ok, leave me b tnx xo) and it clicked with me that this story's central romance and any movie of its sort good in some way NEVER be queer, or never has at the very least. It's unfortunate because if you can't see yourself as a kid, then how can you become it.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally though, I think it's important to touch on that the interest here is in the magic of the formation of what's basically perceivable one-true love style lifelong marriages or relationships and what kind of normative weight that carries and what sort of ecology of not only gender and sexuality but of power and capital those co-exist in.
There are many obviously issues with the underrepresentation of queerness in popular society, but a comparative issue is the over-sexualization of heterosexual romance. Although the movies discussed in the article are rated G, women are ogled and catcalled in multiple movies. Moderately sexual jokes, aimed at adults, aren't always missed by children. The palpable sexual elements of movies are allowed, even as society claims children are being "oversexualized." What also bothers me is the double standard presented. If any of the kisses, catcalling, or sexualized jokes made in the movies concerned queer characters, much of society would be outraged. It's frustrating that it's alright to show children overtly sexualized heterosexual romance, yet showing queerness on any level is viewed as abhorrent.
ReplyDeleteI thought this reading established a good base for exploring the way that heterosexuality and gender roles are rooted in everyday existence, even for children. While I think exclusively targeting mass media as a site of indoctrination into systems of heteronormativity, this reading very clearly shows how media can reinforce these structures already in place.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't really think changing the amount of representation of marginalized groups in mainstream media would really help anything. Mainstream media is an unaccountable monster that feeds on the dominant value systems of the culture(s) it exists in. It is a mirror, and it isn't worth trying to change the reflection.
Positive, quality, major representations in niche media are much more powerful by offering another story that isn't rooted in the assumption of heterosexuality. These stories simultaneously empower the people it represents and showcase the humanity of this group to people unaccustomed to seeing it, should they see it.
I am posting as a reply to you if only to say that your mainstream media metaphor is beautiful and entirely too true.
DeleteOn a similar note, I agree with your last paragraph. There have been many children's films, especially in recent years, to bring to light important messages of culture and love, and I am more than willing to give them kudos for that, heteronormative or otherwise. When it comes to inclusiveness, we are still years behind. Tiana (Princess and the Frog) was the first African-American Disney princess; that movie was released in 2009. That's only five years ago.
Needless to say, we have a lot of catching up to do.
I would love to see equal – or at least more – representation for every orientation and type of relationship; however, the path that the media is taking is not entirely bad. It's frustrating, yes, and terribly slow to evolve, but there are also overlying messages in most of these films that are important for children to be exposed to. Would I like to see them presented differently? Of course, but I do think that as we evolve as a society, we'll begin to see those changes implemented more and more often.
I just amazes me how obsessed adults are with sexualizing children. I believe most children don't see the animal characters as male/female but as asexual beings part of the story. In my opinion Disney movies are portraying heteronormative characteristics to the masses due to the natural tendency to mate, procreate, and become part of a team. In this case a team with a life partner. Is it really all that bad for this to be portrayed as hetero. Children watch too much tv and media outlets anyway and they shouldn't be looking for hero's in the stories they watch. They should be made to understand this is fantasy and not reality.
ReplyDelete