People Are Pointing Out How Animators Exaggerate Female Animal Characters And Give 14 Examples
282Kviews
When it comes to cartoons, what defines the difference between a boy and a girl if the character is an animal? Moreover, is there a need to clearly define the character’s gender anyway? Apparently, the studio executives behind the most popular cartoons think that it’s crucial, but the portrayal of female animal characters in cartoons is giving some people a serious headache.
Just a few years ago, there were even articles on popular news and entertainment outlets suggesting lists of drawn female characters that “sparked” someone’s “sexual awakening”. “I feel like I’m not the only one who would have this as their cartoon crush,” one person wrote while talking about Jessica Rabbit.
Apparently, when it comes to the question, people are divided into two groups: one group has had enough of “sexy” cartoon characters, while the other group finds nothing wrong with it. “The way I handle this is I remember it’s all fictional and I shouldn’t take it as a nature documentary,” one person wrote on Twitter. Nothing wrong with that, but when other Twitter users started posting examples of sexualized cartoon animals, it was apparent that there was a pattern.
More info: Twitter
Recently, one Twitter user pointed out a weird pattern they noticed while watching animated movies
Image credits: slimyhipster
The user argued that anthropomorphized characters that are female are given exaggerated features
Image credits: slimyhipster
“Been watching more animated movies lately and I go [wild] every time the animal designs are like this,” Twitter user slimyhipster wrote upon sharing a drawn picture of a male and female design of a character. “Like okay, there’s always been criticism of fantasy species and the females always look like recolored human women versus the males that look like actual cool monster designs,” the person continues. “But this… when they’re based on *real animal species* and the differences between male and female are not like this. Argue for “stylistic choice” all you want but when the consistent design trait that is used across the board for animated female creatures is boobs and eyelashes then we have a problem.”
Soon enough, other users on the platform were quick to share the examples they witnessed themselves
Image credits: tmkeesey
Most of the cases involved a heavily sexualized female character
Image credits: polarisu
Someone mentioned “the sexy lady goose” from the 2004 movie “Balto III: Wings of Change”
Image credits: ufopossum
And characters from the 2020 anime “Seton Academy: Join the Pack!”
Image credits: angeloratac2002
But one of the most disturbing cases was the duck from Marvel’s 1986 movie “Howard the Duck”
Image credits: dimentiorules
Click here for the uncensored version (at your own risk of sanity).
Someone posted two deer from Open Season (2006) as a side-by-side comparison
Image credits: worm_rights
One user mentioned the female characters in “Ice Age” (2002-2016) as well
Image credits: strawbrybunny
Also, Angelina Jolie’s character in “Shark Tale” (2004)
Image credits: marrongum
And many others
Image credits: TicoFactory
Image credits: IsItWine30Yet
Image credits: Beyond_Cake
Image credits: Sorathewonder
Image credits: jackaboi_art
Image credits: GluffOfficial
Surprisingly, there was already some research done on the topic. Katia Perea, a Ph.D. of sociology, writes in her paper: “Disney’s pedagogy and gender coding set the stage for the princess master narrative that has come to be associated with animated women; young, thin, demure, attractive, orphaned heroines and their cute animal friends who passively await rescue from an unknown prince.”
“This image fitted into Disney’s feminine triptych, perpetuating heteronormative gender coding in the form of the princess, the witch, and the fairy godmother. To compete with the overwhelming appeal of the symphonic Disney style of sentimental and cute, rival Warner Bros. animators transformed their cartoons into a cacophony of the surreal. Whereas Disney portrayed its young women as conservative and beautiful damsels, Warner Bros. portrayed them as sexualized broads and dames,” she continued.
“These feminine characters’ gendered demarcations were shown through sexualized attributes such as breasts and curves, as well as feminine clothing, hairstyles, and long eyelashes. Although Warner Bros. women differ from Disney in their sassy attitude and overt sexual appearance, the message remains the same: women exist as the male object of desire. Disney’s damsels, like Snow White and Cinderella, reinforced domestic gender roles whereas Warner Bros.’ sarcastic and sexy dames, like Petunia Pig or Bugs Bunny in lingerie drag, reinforced women’s objectification and, at times, like the girl cat being chased by the boy skunk Pepe Le Pew, violence against women,” Katia argues in her paper published back in 2018.
However, there were some who didn’t have a problem with the animated design of females
Image credits: RoonKolos
There were people who argued that it’s better when the female is “prettier and more colorful”
Image credits: LgTeknii
Image credits: Pickledsuicune
To illustrate the point that it’s not essential to give exaggerated features to female characters, Twitter users shared good examples seen in cartoons
Image credits: edenmist_
Someone mentioned an animated movie from the 1970s, “The Aristocats”
Image credits: JinMegamiTensei
And the fish parents from Finding Dory (2016)
Image credits: LgTeknii
Image credits: accioharo
Kitty Softpaws’ character in “Puss in Boots” (2011)
Image credits: Miraread_tweets
And two people shared Kung Fu Panda (2008) as a great example of anthropomorphized designs
Image credits: namseokuwu
Image credits: sir_scandalous
Naturally, huge discussions like these sooner or later always retreat to jokes
Image credits: igmrevaporation
Image credits: Wolfie_2323
Which were quite spot on, actually
Image credits: tristanoscars
Image credits: MiloZimbenMusic
And were mocking big studio execs
Image credits: Neon_woof
Image credits: Andrea60723281
Image credits: murderparrot997
Image credits: LouarnRanger
282Kviews
Share on Facebook
Jessica Rabbit isn't a rabbit. She's human (an exaggerated cartoon human, but still a human). Her last name is Rabbit because she's married to Roger Rabbit. Now THAT'S the part that's weird.
Nothing wrong with a girl loving her Rabbit.
"He makes me laugh."
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Wait...didn't it die in 1977's "Rabbit Test"?
She's not bad, she's just drawn that way (i.e. either drawn to appear naughty or drawn badly - up for debate). Best line ever.
Even when I was younger I thought it strange a rabbit was banging a human female. Beastiality at it’s finest.
But, they weren't "banging", they were playing patty cake. ;)
So Roger is a rabbit, and his last name is Rabbit? I wonder if Jessica's maiden name was Human.
A girl's best friend is often her rabbit!
Sigh, people need to stop with their outrage. Are some of these ridiculous? Sure, but if they all look the same it is hard to follow the story. And we are already anthropomorphizing them by giving them human specific emotions and story lines... video games are a whole different thing. Give a lady some armor!!!
That I can agree with. Female armour in rpgs is a running joke. I hold out hope for an rpg maker including bikini armour for the male characters too. The Chain Mail Beach Thong of protection + 1 would be epic.
Okay, male bikini armor would be funny. But as a female myself I really hate it when video games force me to wear bikini armor. please give me regular armor, gosh dang.
Preach! Video games are not only for straight males and lesbians.
How about the Codpiece of Fish Command?... I'll see myself out.
Luke, as you said, the barbarian, not all/most of them. Now compare other classes. Games that put the barbarian that way is usually just the barbarian
Plenty of video games have male barbarian characters with little to no armor.
You know you can make an animal look female without giving it boobs, high heels, and eyelashes, right.
Yes, Rissie, I am an artist. I am aware of what a caricature is. You, however, seem unaware of the idea that caricatures can be harmful, or evidence of something harmful. In this case, it's evidence of the fact that women are viewed as sex objects, because even female animals in cartoons get portrayed with blatant sexual characteristics while the males do not.
Russia, I guess you dont get how caricatured work. In those you highlight or exaggerate a feature, not create a non existent feature out of thin air
The Rockadoodle one (The chicken in a dress) makes sense to the story as there is a Rooster performer dressed as Elvis...the rest I can't defend.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's called a caricature. It is actually meant to show an extreme to make an audience aware of stereotypes to begin with. Usually in a light hearted way.
The importance of this discussion is that evidences that being male is the “default/ neutral/normal” in our Society. That being female is considered a specific characteristic, as if women weren’t 50% of the population. Related to that, there’s a tendency of objectification of women. That makes sense if you consider that the normal point of view is male, right? It usually means that women are not seen as fully person on their own right, but only in relation to men, and, in that sense, as a sexual/romantic partner to the male protagonist. That’s why you have so strongly sexualized features in female characters.
Exactly! Folks here don't seem to get that this is exactly why the designs of the female characters here are a problem. Also, Rissie, you can make a caricature without exaggerating sexual characteristics.
very well put.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Most males look ridiculous too! They are very much portrayed as exagerated stereotypes (aka caricatures) too. These are not examples of what we want, they are examples of what we do at this point. We're on this cancel culture train and it's hard to stop I guess.
But defensive stats are inverted for ladies. The smaller your clothes, the higher your defense. It is known.
Well I read this as observations, not outrage. But I see how it might be hard to differentiate for some.
Agree. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out room for improvement. I liked that they included examples of how to do it better.
I don't follow your logic. It's easy to tell them apart when they have names and dialogue. Otherwise the books of these stories would only work with pictures, wouldn't they?? We seem able to tell one male character from another too..
I think books they can use names and pronouns. If that isn’t enough then use eyelashes alone or make both sexes with human like bodies.
But it's not necessary to oversexualise animals in cartoons. We can differ Puss and Kitty and they are both cats, and we know which one is male and which is female, right? It can be done without enormous muscles in males and boobs and big hair in females. That is ridiculous, those are animals, fish, chickens and birds don't even need big breasts, they are not mammals. Even mammals... I have to female cats, they look just like male cats, except a bit smaller a cuter. Isn't that enough? Or we really need to sexualise children cartoons so that we can tell "which is a boy and a girl"???
This comment has been deleted.
Exacly what i wanted to say to this! Well said, indeed.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
And... women's body's *are* different from men's. It is what it is...
It's not about women Shelby, it's about chicken having boobs because some animators think it's only way to differ genders
Aleksandra, exactly, and chickens are already female so they don't need extra boobs or hips
Actually chicken is gender neutral. Hens are female chickens.
Twitter is fed up with something??? Shooooocccccckkkkkkeeeeeeerrrrr.
But they do have a point
This has important implications in law making, politics and economics. Being man the “neutral” form means that the thought process is usually focused in men’s needs and men’s reality, and that the reality and the needs of women are considered “different”, exceptions from normality. And, because of that, a lot of the times are not considered at all. ------------------------------- You can also see that when you draw a stick figure. Usually, if it is just the simple stick figure (head, limbs and torso) people assume it’s male. In order for it to be female there has to be something more, like a skirt or long hair.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, but you're 100% on the mark here.
This is something well deserving of getting fed up over.
The problem is that being female is stereotyped. The cultural norm is being male.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
No it isn't. The animals are anthropomorphized. It isn't supposed to look just like the real thing. Having visually distinct genders helps the audience to connect with the character. If you take away the visual cues, many people are just going to assume all the characters are male, so you are doing female representation a disservice by taking away visual cues.
Jessica Rabbit isn't a rabbit. She's human (an exaggerated cartoon human, but still a human). Her last name is Rabbit because she's married to Roger Rabbit. Now THAT'S the part that's weird.
Nothing wrong with a girl loving her Rabbit.
"He makes me laugh."
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Wait...didn't it die in 1977's "Rabbit Test"?
She's not bad, she's just drawn that way (i.e. either drawn to appear naughty or drawn badly - up for debate). Best line ever.
Even when I was younger I thought it strange a rabbit was banging a human female. Beastiality at it’s finest.
But, they weren't "banging", they were playing patty cake. ;)
So Roger is a rabbit, and his last name is Rabbit? I wonder if Jessica's maiden name was Human.
A girl's best friend is often her rabbit!
Sigh, people need to stop with their outrage. Are some of these ridiculous? Sure, but if they all look the same it is hard to follow the story. And we are already anthropomorphizing them by giving them human specific emotions and story lines... video games are a whole different thing. Give a lady some armor!!!
That I can agree with. Female armour in rpgs is a running joke. I hold out hope for an rpg maker including bikini armour for the male characters too. The Chain Mail Beach Thong of protection + 1 would be epic.
Okay, male bikini armor would be funny. But as a female myself I really hate it when video games force me to wear bikini armor. please give me regular armor, gosh dang.
Preach! Video games are not only for straight males and lesbians.
How about the Codpiece of Fish Command?... I'll see myself out.
Luke, as you said, the barbarian, not all/most of them. Now compare other classes. Games that put the barbarian that way is usually just the barbarian
Plenty of video games have male barbarian characters with little to no armor.
You know you can make an animal look female without giving it boobs, high heels, and eyelashes, right.
Yes, Rissie, I am an artist. I am aware of what a caricature is. You, however, seem unaware of the idea that caricatures can be harmful, or evidence of something harmful. In this case, it's evidence of the fact that women are viewed as sex objects, because even female animals in cartoons get portrayed with blatant sexual characteristics while the males do not.
Russia, I guess you dont get how caricatured work. In those you highlight or exaggerate a feature, not create a non existent feature out of thin air
The Rockadoodle one (The chicken in a dress) makes sense to the story as there is a Rooster performer dressed as Elvis...the rest I can't defend.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's called a caricature. It is actually meant to show an extreme to make an audience aware of stereotypes to begin with. Usually in a light hearted way.
The importance of this discussion is that evidences that being male is the “default/ neutral/normal” in our Society. That being female is considered a specific characteristic, as if women weren’t 50% of the population. Related to that, there’s a tendency of objectification of women. That makes sense if you consider that the normal point of view is male, right? It usually means that women are not seen as fully person on their own right, but only in relation to men, and, in that sense, as a sexual/romantic partner to the male protagonist. That’s why you have so strongly sexualized features in female characters.
Exactly! Folks here don't seem to get that this is exactly why the designs of the female characters here are a problem. Also, Rissie, you can make a caricature without exaggerating sexual characteristics.
very well put.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Most males look ridiculous too! They are very much portrayed as exagerated stereotypes (aka caricatures) too. These are not examples of what we want, they are examples of what we do at this point. We're on this cancel culture train and it's hard to stop I guess.
But defensive stats are inverted for ladies. The smaller your clothes, the higher your defense. It is known.
Well I read this as observations, not outrage. But I see how it might be hard to differentiate for some.
Agree. And there's nothing wrong with pointing out room for improvement. I liked that they included examples of how to do it better.
I don't follow your logic. It's easy to tell them apart when they have names and dialogue. Otherwise the books of these stories would only work with pictures, wouldn't they?? We seem able to tell one male character from another too..
I think books they can use names and pronouns. If that isn’t enough then use eyelashes alone or make both sexes with human like bodies.
But it's not necessary to oversexualise animals in cartoons. We can differ Puss and Kitty and they are both cats, and we know which one is male and which is female, right? It can be done without enormous muscles in males and boobs and big hair in females. That is ridiculous, those are animals, fish, chickens and birds don't even need big breasts, they are not mammals. Even mammals... I have to female cats, they look just like male cats, except a bit smaller a cuter. Isn't that enough? Or we really need to sexualise children cartoons so that we can tell "which is a boy and a girl"???
This comment has been deleted.
Exacly what i wanted to say to this! Well said, indeed.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
And... women's body's *are* different from men's. It is what it is...
It's not about women Shelby, it's about chicken having boobs because some animators think it's only way to differ genders
Aleksandra, exactly, and chickens are already female so they don't need extra boobs or hips
Actually chicken is gender neutral. Hens are female chickens.
Twitter is fed up with something??? Shooooocccccckkkkkkeeeeeeerrrrr.
But they do have a point
This has important implications in law making, politics and economics. Being man the “neutral” form means that the thought process is usually focused in men’s needs and men’s reality, and that the reality and the needs of women are considered “different”, exceptions from normality. And, because of that, a lot of the times are not considered at all. ------------------------------- You can also see that when you draw a stick figure. Usually, if it is just the simple stick figure (head, limbs and torso) people assume it’s male. In order for it to be female there has to be something more, like a skirt or long hair.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted, but you're 100% on the mark here.
This is something well deserving of getting fed up over.
The problem is that being female is stereotyped. The cultural norm is being male.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
No it isn't. The animals are anthropomorphized. It isn't supposed to look just like the real thing. Having visually distinct genders helps the audience to connect with the character. If you take away the visual cues, many people are just going to assume all the characters are male, so you are doing female representation a disservice by taking away visual cues.