Recently there have been a lot of inflammatory remarks made on a variety of topics; homosexuality, economy and immigration, just to name few. In Australia I have been reading about certain remarks made by Jason Akermanis regarding gay AFL players. Comments like that really don’t help to build the bridge of acceptance. In America the debate rages over Arizona’s intended law to clamp down on illegal immigrants. There have been calls that Arizona is harping back to the days of Hitler and his Nazi regime. Again, such comments lack substance and are really just a ridiculous reaction to a complicated issue. What no one stops to think about is the effect it has on kids. They have role models. These days with amount of movie stars, sports players, politicians (yes some kids want to be President) involving themselves in illegal or just immoral activities, kids really only have one place to look for inspiration. And so it is that I feel it’s time someone spoke up and put a stop to a trend that has been slowly building over a number of years. I have no problem with people expressing their opinion no matter how stupid it is. But I draw the line at involving the last bastion of all that is holy and good. Cartoon characters. Yes you heard me. Cartoon characters.
From the days when Humphrey B Bear (okay he was more of a suit character but my point stands) and Donald Duck were lambasted for not wearing pants we have seen a gradual shift towards trivializing those poor innocent (in most cases) two dimensional characters we hold so dear. I mean, for God’s sake people, Humphrey couldn’t even talk! How is he supposed to verbally defend himself? Have you ever tried to go through life not being able to vocally express yourself and having to resort to waving your arms around to make a point? No wonder Humphrey didn’t wear pants. If I’m rushing to the bathroom for an emergency session I start loosening the belt buckle a good 20 yards from my intended destination for an easy and smooth transition. Time is of the essence. That is usually accompanied by a warning cry of ‘you might wanna move’. If you take the vocal out of the situation I am left with frantic arm waving as a warning which leaves me entering the cubicle with pants fully attached. There is no time. I would much rather walk around sans pants forevermore. Even though that emergency situation is hardly a regular occurrence, even if going without daks saves me just once in my life, it’s a good day. You add to that the common held belief that a bear shits in the woods and he’s not going to be concerned about saving his modesty. Of course Children’s Watchdog Groups went a step further and complained that a lack of pants meant children were confused as to the gender of the characters. When these characters were first conceived times were so much more simple. If you were a female character you had long eyelashes and a bow in your hair. If you were male you wore a vest. Game over. That’s all you needed. There was no need for genitalia. Let me ask you what is worse. A simple case of no pants? Or a case of no pants revealing a set of two dimensional plums? I rest my case.
Over the years, many a cartoon character has been dragged through the mud. The sexuality of the Teletubbies came into question in the Eighties. Even the current mascots for the London Olympics have been branded as ‘gay’. Rumours were always surrounding the relationship of Bert and Ernie. All kids want to do is be entertained. Why should we bring terms into children’s heads that they need not learn until way later in life? Everyone complains, and rightly so, about kids using the phrase ‘that’s so gay’ without knowing what the implications are and why it is so offensive. So why give them the bad habit of labeling people to begin with, by claiming that these characters are gender confusing. Are they entertaining? Are they teaching kids good values? Then who gives a crap about their sexual orientation or whether they wear pants. If the worst thing your child does is emulate their favorite character by walking around the house with no pants on, then I think you are doing pretty well.
What has offended my deepest love of cartoons has happened this week. In the debate over immigration and in particular Arizona intent on protecting it’s border with Mexico, both sides of the argument have seemingly recruited a depiction of the same character at the same time. Both using her for propaganda to further their point. Dora the Explorer. I shit you not. Dora has been sullied. Her name and face and reputation are in a tug of war. Some say she is an illegal immigrant, depicted with a black eye, like she has been beaten up by over zealous status-checking department of immigration officials. Surely this has now gotten out of hand. Children’s cartoon characters are helpless, defenseless purveyors of entertainment. Their job in life is not to take political sides. They are here to teach young boys and girls about counting, and the alphabet and being curious about the world around them. People please, just let the poor girl go about her exploring.
But of course that’s not good enough for some people. They are not happy unless she does it in her own country.
And wears pants.
You nailed it Brad! The poor defenseless cartoon guys didn’t get run over by enough trains, shot out of enough cannons, dropped off enough cliffs, hit on the head with enough anvils, or shot, chopped, diced, sliced, or blown up enough all on their own! Now we have to throw them into the ugly tabloid world as well. You mention the living arrangement of Bert & Ernie, but I always did wonder about the sexuality of the rest of those Muppets. Thanks for a good yuk! Keep up the cause!