People Are Pointing Out How Animators Exaggerate Female Animal Characters And Give 14 Examples
241Kviews
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
241Kviews
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."
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. ;)
A girl's best friend is often her rabbit!
So Roger is a rabbit, and his last name is Rabbit? I wonder if Jessica's maiden name was Human.
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.
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.
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"???
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..
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
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.
Yes, i am female, but i don't really care. Just drop it. Please.
I'm female and I'm a character designer so no, this is not something I'll drop. Nearly everyone in the quoted Twitter threads is correct.
@Craig Lee Yay, my favourite argument. "Don't say you want to change something because there are homeless people out there, which means we can't do anything else but caring about them. Your opinion doesn't matter because there are worse things". Yeah, great attitude. I assume all you do in your life is helping homeless people. Actually, why are you discussing with us? Shouldn't you cooking soup for them, or something? Because you know, there are worse things than some girls from the internet whose opinion is unimportant for you. Don't argue with them. Do something important.
that's... that's not what "white knight" means. Also, I can critique art while also donating to people who need money. I don't know why you think these two are mutually exclusive.
People aren't getting downvoted because you don't want the female body over sexualized. People are downvoting these ridiculous notions that this is somehow some major problem in general. Do you seriously have nothing better to do than white knight for how artists draw characters in animated shows? How about helping the homeless, cleaning up garbage from roadsides, or even doing something about women who have no rights and are persecuted in other countries?
This comment has been deleted.
I am female too and I will not drop it because this is idiotic.
Female mammals have boobs, Stephanie. And most of them don't look like human boobs. Birds, reptiles, etc don't have them at all. Go back to biology class.
Man why are we getting downvoted for being women who don’t like seeing our bodies sexualized? :/
well i am female too, and this has bothered me for a while even when I was little watching cartoons I would notice it and it made me wonder. I'm glad some people put it in words with some well-chosen examples.
Stephanie, female wasps have a modified ovipositor to inoculate venom, it's a strict female characteristic. So shall let us put wasp stings in every female character then? How about putting a pouch in every male, for male seahorses have those, and a good old pedipalp with a palpal bud, just like male spiders. I want to see a female duck with stings and boobs and a male lizard with a incubating pouch and pedipalp with a palpal bud, NOW PLEASE.
Well Stephanie, if you think that making people attracted to animals with human boobs is ok, I have no more arguments in this discussion.
This comment has been deleted.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Well females have boobs. So there's that! You made that someone gave a female character female body parts? Hahaha! Yeah, you're right. It's so idiot that someone gave a female character female body parts. Just wow!
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Can everybody please stop calling women “females“? We are not in a nature documentary here.
LMAO. Suddenly women being called "females" is offensive. What a world.
Really? People are having trouble with female character shorthand like a more puffed up chest an bigger hips? Its basic cartooning to make characters identifiable, like the barrel chest, big hands and chin a strong character gets (Montaray Jack f.e) or the thin slender built a sneaky character gets. Ok some instances are exaggerated, but most of the time there is a reason for it in the story.
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. ----------------------------- 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.
so skinny people are sneaky? WTF?
In cartoon shorthand? Yes. In real life? Probably no more sneaky than others.
Thank you virgil. Some idiot just got upset because I said it's a cartoon. The females can be created to look like......... You guessed it! Females. Plus its a cartoon. That dude literally called me an idiot because he cannot understand cartoons. Lmao these people are so irrationally ignorant and they think they are right. God it must be hard being that oblivious.
No, there's really no reason for it other than really lazy character design. It's entirely possible to design a female character without giving them exaggerated human female sexual characteristics. Heck, there's even examples of it shown.
Even the examples of supposedly better choices had either female hats or female eye lashes or lipstick.
Boring
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Right. Whole thing makes me smiling. Look at instagram for example. Almost every woman looks like whore and some of them look like aliens. So these are templates for artists. It is a mirror. People, look at yourself first.
You’re just proving the point that the people who make these awful designs are sexist.
Odiet lol
Nobody mentioned there's a freaking bird in high heels. 🤣
The Secretary bird?
hahahahahaahahahahaahaha...um, no.
The whole point is that this kind of portraial of female characters is in the first place not realistic. You don't need lashes, a pretty face, small nose and boobs to be a female. The main audience of animated movies are children. This is education! So I totally understand the whole point. A good example is piglet, roo and the snake Kaa. They are animals and it simply doesn't matter if they are pretty or have female features. The sex of somebody shouldn't be the most important thing or must have to be identified with the first view.
Piglet, Roo, and Kaa are all males...
This comment has been deleted.
The boy and girl wolves are hilarious! Lol
Males have more elaborate coloring and shape than females in the animal kingdom not the other way around
yeah, and the male leads in these animated films are NEVER exaggerated. Gimme a fucking break.
They are and it’s mentioned in the article. The point if the read is that females are generally hypersexualized and “feminine” while the males are either left as is or are made to look closer to character.
Indeed. Exaggeration and certain visual shorthand is the life blood of character design. It's just like casting an actor for a role.
True, but it's kind of sad that the males are most often drawn as goofy looking 'buddies' you'd hang out with; and for females it's just 'well, let's make it f*ckable'
Yeah but this isn't exaggeration, it's just bad, lazy character design.
That’s not a problem of those specific cartoons. It’s a dangerous trait of our society, and cause real harm, because the female reality is considered an exception. It causes problems with laws, medicines, medical treatments, products, etc., because they are created based on the male needs.
The problem is that being female is stereotyped. The cultural norm is being male. You also can see it in several culture products where there are a number of different male characters, each one with a different personality (the brave one, the intelligent/nerd one, the leader, the funny/goofy one, etc.) and ONE female character whose main characteristic is that she’s female. The complexity and variability of women are denied, as if women weren’t as human as men.
Males are too. You are making it seem like animals look anything like that...
Oh totally, all male cartoon characters are drawn with huge, prominent male sex organs, right?
I wish
They are, they're made to look more male.
There's better ways of showing a visual difference between male and female characters than boobs and eyelashes. Make the females slightly smaller, and perhaps a little more slender. That's it. That's all you have to do. Females of many species are usually a little smaller than the males, so it actually makes sense. I think the part that bothers me the most is when the female characters are hypersexualized, while the male characters aren't. It's gross.
That's not really easy to see when the character is alone or passing by, or sometimes at all. Gluing characteristics of human females onto other animals has worked for a hundred-something years, and i'm almost certain that some random Chicken/Pig/Goat/Crocodile/Hyena/Wolf/Triggerfish/Slug/Bobbit Worm/Cow/Bee/Dragon/Whatever won;t be offended, as they 1: Don't know what art/animation/tv is 2: Spend most of their time away from it and 3: Do not know what is even "wrong" with the magic picture thing.
My experience is that females always seem to have large biceps, without much gym work. Maybe start there...?
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. 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. You also can see it in several culture products where there are a number of different male characters, each one with a different personality (the brave one, the intelligent/nerd one, the lea
I've got boobs and proud of 'm. This isnt a battle we need to fight, there are worse problems in this world.
Chickens don't have any. They also do not have long eyelashes, high heels and makeup.
You're dangerously stupid LOL
It’s a fucking cartoon. The virtue signaling on this post is absurd.
Cool. I have breasts too and would really like it if folks would not look at them as the most important part of myself. When I see idiots drawing female birds with breasts, I see people who think “girl = BREASTS” which is a terrible way to think.
I have small breasts that usually don't show a budge when I'm wearing a coat/jacket. Yet I've never been mistaken for a boy. So I'm not sure it is "the most recognizable characteristic of a female human at first glance" @Balcony...
yes
Yeah, but they're the most recognisable characteristic of a female human at first glance.
Google whataboutism. There are always worse problems in the world. I mean, there's racism in our country, but people in other countries are better slaughtered, so I guess we don't need to do anything about the racism, because there are bigger problems in the world, right?
0_0
On a scale from "Diseases" to "Figuring out how to turn Gold into Rat Shit" this is roughly at 27 from the bottom.
This comment has been deleted.
For the posters that think male are not subject to this presure: every...superhero...movie...ever! Boys/men are taught at a young age to just suck it up and deal with it. Why do you think male suicide rate is soooooo much higher than female. We have feelings too, we need to be told we look good too. Besides Captin Underpants, show me one superhero that looks like your average male.
Additionally, (now that I found my soapbox) portraying males like this is bad for women too. It leads women to believe they MUST find a man like that to be protected. You know what men who look like that are? Egotistical assholes that look at themselves in the mirror while they workout. And then the women wonder why their relationship sucked. I know this isn't 100% true, just 99.999999%.
well that should be adressed too, cause it is not getting any better.
It IS harmful, but it’s also not quite the same thing, the muscular build of superheroes is a male power fantasy. The overly-curvy women you see in movies are... also dressed/built/designed/drawn that way for straight men. Most women DON’T want to look like that. That’s the difference here. Women are treated as objects, men are told they’re not enough and/or aren’t allowed to show emotions. Both important issues, but different ones.
Those photo shopped wolves, hahaha
the rats from ratatoing are awful
THIS comes to mind as soon as I saw this comment
I remember them being so similar people are still discussing how many were females. A few bigger eyelashes or such would have helped there.
Why do they need bigger eyelashes? What does knowing which ones are male and which ones are female add to the story?
Hobbitly, it cleans up any confusion.
Oh, the humanity!
I don't always notice the overdeveloped pectoral region, but the first thing I think of when I consider female cartoon animals is those dang over-exaggerated eyelashes!
I think it's innapropriate to be giving female characters such exaggerated features. As a young woman, I do not appreciate it when they do this to female characters. Plus, most women in real life don't look ridiculous like that.
Lamby: IKR? Especially in anime...some of us were hoping that they really looked like that..
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
It's cartoons. It isn't real life. Yet we all know what body parts identify us as male or female. There is no problem here at all. People are mad that a female cartoon character is being given boobs and hips. Well women have those and men also look different and it's supposed to be over exaggerated. THEY ARE CARTOONS! Not real life. Ignorance is annoying.
they mean animals because animals don't actually look like that, and people are sexualizing them because men like to see that. they're basically making it seem like what makes a woman female is her body
This comment has been deleted.
It CAN be a bit annoying sometimes, but they're the most recognisable characteristic of a female human at first glance.
Ah, so this is what inspired the furries
I want the geese from The Aristocrats to tell a dirty joke.
Sometimes I think people google “what should offend me today” and come up with a new stupid thing to be offended by
Normally I’d agree but in this case, as a character designer and as a woman who’s tired of seeing female characters being sexualized, this legit ticks me off.
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. -----------------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.
Okay I'm morbidly curious, what cartoon is the sexy chicken near the top from?
That's Goldie Pheasant from Rock- A -Doodle. She's actually a pheasant, not a chicken.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
*jesus christ man, u need a doctor*
...maybe that bull was in the middle of transitioning or something o_O? any other way and it just does not add up. At all.
It was just a really lazy character design--that's why all the bulls in that movie had udders.
that's udderly ridiculous
I remember seeing a show with anthropomorphic lions, and the females had feminine features. Yeah, ignore the fact that lions are famous for their irl sexual dimorphism.
Birds with 'mammaries'?? Clue's in the name bozo, mammaries...mammal?? Birds aren't mammals, why'd we want our kids thinking they are??
bruh its a cartoon visit the boomerang nebula and chill
Maybe this will change as time goes on, just as gender roles and ideals are slowly changing. At the same time, am I offended a female pigeon has a bigger "breast"? Not really.
I don't really mind it tbh
Nvm, just haven't really noticed before. Think more movies should follow Kung Fu Panda and Shrek's female designs
There was a fantastic "Rhymes with Orange" comic strip from Feb 28, 1999 that dealt with this very thing. It had a female bear deciding that she was tired of being distinguished from her male counterpart via lipstick and eyelashes, and instead making the male bear wear tighty-whities and hold a TV remote to indicate his gender. It used to be posted at http://rhymeswithorange.com/comics/february-28-1999/ but it seems to have disappeared from the internet. I wish I could find it again!
Daphne, I see Hilary Price's comic daily on FB. Get on there, send a message via messenger, and see what develops...
They are cartoons! Go be woke somewhere else!
The ice age one I feel was deliberate, to show that the daughter was a very girly girl (not a bad thing and not always shown through the way she looks) and was separate from her parents, it could also carry the message of trying to fit in, by having her parents (who are comfortable with themselves) demonstrate the traditional mammoth look and then have her looking like a human (female) mammoth like the other teenage mammoths allows the audience to make connections that way. I don't think the design of these two characters is relevant in demonstrating male and female characters. Instead they should have used Manny and Ellie as a demonstration of it not happening in all cartoons.
They are cartoons. They are supposed to be over exaggerated. The small amount of people bothered by this is missing the point. Thank god the rest of us get what cartoon characters are and are supposed to be over exaggerated and sometimes make no sense. Kinda like the talking animals in so many cartoons. It ain't real yall. But assigning the gender makes sense and seeing how females have boobs and hips. Yep! That's how it works. God ignorance is not bliss for those of us that get it. Realize that there is no issue here. Because it's cartoons people. Smh.
There is an issue here, and it’s the oversexualization of women. People are so used to seeing women as sex objects that they design FEMALE BIRDS AND REPTILES with gosh-danged mammalian breasts. You can make female cartoon designs without adding sexualized features that are not there originally.
Words do not describe how much i want to hit you with a chair
Jessica Rabbit is a married woman. She's not a rabbit!
This was probably just like 20 people on twitter that Bored Panda turned into an article as if it was some global movement. The truth is that, like that one person said, it isn't a nature documentary. The animals in these films have been anthropomorphized in order for the audience to better connect with the characters. If you want more accurate animals, try the animals in Snow White, Bambi, or the Fox and the Hound.
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology. Oxford English Dictionary... Most of the overly sexualized female characters are from the 20th century...
Missing the point here. It's the way the genders are anthropomorphized in such distinctly different ways.
How am I missing the point when I specifically addressed the point and contextualized it?
The anthropomorphism is not the problem. The problem is that they feel like they have to oversexualize characters in a stereotypical fashion to show that they are female. That’s not only a problem of those specific cartoons, but it shows how the cultural norm is being male. When people think of a person, they think of a man. This has important implications in law making, politics, medicine and economics. Being man the “neutral” form means that the thought process is usually focused in men’s reality, and that the reality of women is considered “different”, an exception from normality. And there’s also a tendency of objectification of women, which makes sense if you consider that the normal point of view is male. 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.
Again, if you read my actual comments, I specifically contextualize it to the 20th century in most cases.
ITS THE MOST RECOGNISABLE TRAIT. BOOBS ARE THE MOST RECOGNISABLE TRAIT OF WOMEN. I FEEL LIKE A DAMN PHOTON HERE.
-CHAT GOT CRAZY LMAO OVO-
to everybody saying this is stupid and that there’s worse going on: yes there is racism and starvation but there is also sexism and this is an example of it, so start realizing that women can get offended by this and it's not okay to make children think that what makes a woman a woman is her body. animals do not look like this, and woman aren't just made up of hips and breasts, and that's not how you should symbolize them. sure some of these are stupid, but a lot are not. it's showing men and boys (and girls too) that to be a woman you have to be sexy, and that the only representation of that is their body and that's not okay. it's not a good mindset for young girls and boys to be raised upon. so grow the hell up and realize that before saying that there are bigger issues. of course there are! we're sharing OUR troubles. this is an easy fix, and we're saying it should be fixed. so just stop spreading hate
When did we got so frickin concerned with the accuracy of FICTION! 1st world problems.
Erick Blood +
This is one of the stupidest things ever.
Soooo, how would they want them to draw characters then? Like real birds or cats? No one can friggin tell looking at a pigeon if it's a female or male. I can't believe this is an article even, and that proper are fucken bothered by such things.
You don’t have to oversexualize characters to show that they are female. But that’s not a problem of those specific cartoons, it actually shows that being female is culturally stereotyped. The cultural norm is being male. This has important implications in law making, politics, medicine 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 there’s also a tendency of objectification of women, which makes sense if you consider that the normal point of view is male. 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.
*megaphone feedback* WOW ITS ALMOST AS IF THEY'RE DOING THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF ANTHROPOMORPHISE. WHAT A REVELATION!
i agree with this, it's also teaching young children that what makes a woman a woman is her body, and that that's the only thing distinguishing her and representing her, and that's not a good mindset
Some animals already have sexual dimorphism, like birds. You can immediately tell the difference between a female and a male chicken, or a female and a male cardinal. There's other things you can do as well without sexualizing them.... but even then, like, how much of that is really necessary? I mean, look at Shenzi from The Lion King--she's female and doesn't have any of the awful looks of most of the other female characters featured on this post.
Shenzi didn't do much though.
Counterpoint: Animators do this with male characters equally often. Exaggerated shoulders and muscular chests, facial hair on non-mammals, that sort of thing. Maybe instead of getting all offended and seeing sexism that isn't there, we should focus on issues that actually matter.
Ah, yes, because showing a male character with a beard is exactly the same thing as saying "see, this character is a WOMAN because she has SEXY BREASTS!!!!!!!!" The main thing is that it's a result of women being seen as sex objects.
mate its like the most recognisable feature of women
You shouldn't sexualize animals
WAIT! the hyena is a GIRL?! all my life I thought it was a boy.
There are three hienas
I have a couple of thoughts here, not all necessarily what i think is right, just thoughts.. Firstly. They ARE just artists interpretations of anthropomorphic animals. Not all female animal characters are drawn hyper sexy. Just some are and this article has hand picked just a small handful of characters that are moreso than others. kind of like humans. you do get male characters drawn like human males too.. ive never seen a fox stand on two feet and walk around in clothes but zootopia and robin hood have this. just that the examples here differ. I might be wrong, but i feel like this article is body shaming animated animal characters? (why?) or are they saying its wrong to be attracted to some people for the way they look? is the article writer just uncomfortable with finding a drawing of a human-animal attractive? reminder that not all the animations above are aimed at children. the Howard the Duck example is actually from an 18 rated film and is meant to be uncomfortable.
Note how you point out that animals designed like human males = standing on two legs and wearing clothes... why would that not be the same for female anthro animals? Just to stand on two legs and wear clothes? The “human male” example you gave is fine because there’s nothing wrong with it. The problem with the female anthro designs is the idea that female = “SEXY BOOBS” or whatever. Why do female animals, particularly ones that are not mammals, need mammary glands?? There’s so many other ways to indicate the gender of a nonhuman character without making them as close to a “sexy” human woman as possible.
It is the same for human animals though. Maid marion in Robin hood looks feminine without boobs. Aristocrats.. feminine without boobs. Bianca from rescuers... the mouse in secret of nimh. The swan princess when shes a swan.. just SOME animals are drawn with features that are attractive to humans. And that's ok. Because some humans also have attractive features and it's ok to like them. It's even the same for objects that arnt animals. Beauty and the beast. The wardrobe is obviously a woman without drawing boobs. And yet the feather duster is "sexy" because all humans also have different physical qualities. As for saying that Male anthro characters arnt handsome. Tell me Robin hood isnt good looking. Or Beast. Or Thomas o maly. Or king Richard the lion at the end of Robin hood. They are still drawn beautifully and also look masculine. People are looking for things to be offended by in a topic that it isnt nessisary. Some cartoon characters are drawn attractively. But so are humans t
You are making me facepalm on a really intense degree.
So the article ends up looking like this. Cherry-Pic...a56d74.jpg
blizzard entertainment be like: "remember our motto, concept artists!, tiddies over functionality!"
yeah but what about both
That chicken looked NOTHING like a chicken. At least you can tell what the other ones are!
That's because she's a pheasant. She's still drawn very human like though.
I think they are just meant to represent cute or sexy characters. The generally best most recognisable way to do that is to add some eyelashes, bust/hip shapes and bigger eyes. If the characters are not meant to be actual animals but more like animal people there is even less problem imho.
It's almost as if the word "anthropomorphise" means make something more human!
Also can we talk about how the "male" animal looks pretty damn neutral - no abs or bulges or anything that is considered stereotypically masculine. It is only once we get to the "female" animal that we see boobs and eyelashes. The standards are not carried through. There are other ways to gender characters - certain species have different colours, like peacocks and sunbirds; others have different mannerisms - female pigeons tend to drink differently to male pigeons; some have features - think manes on lions (although this is not definitive as there have been cases where lions with female genitalia grow manes). Teach kids about nature, not about unnecessary stereotypes.
I honestly don't mind OVERLY exaggerated designs for different characters since most animated cartoons are for children. But sometimes they go over the top
Stalking yes
we should not be teaching little kids that to be female you have to dress and act like these images
Lizards with boobs should definitely see their vet immediately!
As a female who's read a lot of the comments, I have to side with OP here, yes it's a cartoon/kids movie so you couldn't expect all female characters to be 100% biologically drawn but at the same time it's insulting to see what's supposed to be a female lizard drawn like a girl with bad skin, giving her a voice with a higher pitch and slightly longer lashes Isnt a problem but having her designed with shoulder length hair plus lipstick and massacre?? It's insulting, women are so much more than pretty colors and D cups. Take the princess and the frog for example, when Tiana is turned into a frog it's easy to tell them apart because prince naveen had the striped like pattern, deeper voice, and was taller by comparison. While Tianas voice was higher and her color was a slightly lighter shade of green.
Those orcs and trolls ones are extremely accurate.
To the man who was confused on the bull with utters, bulls have utters just like you (a dude) has nips.
I'm more annoyed femininity is shamed. If it bothers you that much then don't watch the movie.
Caring about the important stuff.
Where's Tom & Jerry??
attacking eachother
I was today years old when I learned that Nemo's dad looks like he's balding.... and I've seen that a million times
The one about alien lizards always gets me; same as the sexy orc/troll/etc. That's not so much character design, as it is creating fap material. :-)
Leave "Murenase! Seton Academy" alone. It's actually instructional concerning mammalian genetics and morphology. That, and the ethnic stereotypes are so funny... *snort*
The world sucks a little bit more after this rubbish
This was pointless.
Talking geese? That's outrageous! Cancel Disney!
I get it to a degree, it's for children... Created for children as the target audience, it's to help it make sense to tiny kids. That said the very over exaggerated show girl frog from Disney's thumbelina, will always haunt me.
Can't blame Disney for that one, Thumbelina was Warner Bros
Much of the Asian animation is not for children. The example above was for 16+, not kiddies. I see Disney characters, and think of how they might be cooked for dinner.
you eat mice??
Thank you for providing contextualization. Even 1940's Warner Bros. cartoons were aimed at adult audiences shown before movies.
Funny how all the boys who have plenty of time to watch sport and play games suddenly get short of time when women want to talk about the way their sex is represented in popular culture.
calm down everyone its just art its not like its gonna blow a tornado at your house or replace the moon with a painted plate or open a portal to a dystopian world and make humans unable to breed or slowly replace everyone with robotic clones of themselves
Yes, I imagine the sexual objectification of women does have no real world impact on you. Now try to imagine what it might be like when it does.
Oh my god, some people really do have way too much time on their hands and whine for every single little fucking insignificant dipshit.
Animals that talk, wear clothes, display human intelligence and emotions is fine, but everyone goes batshit crazy if they have eyelashes??? I suspect I'm on the wrong side of the fence on this one, but you know what they say: If you don't like it, change the channel.
What hath offend me this morrow? Ah this wilth do! Nom nom nom nom nom.
This comment has been deleted.
Deleted my comment because it had already been made.
So, that they are walking up right and are dressed like humans and have the cognitive abilities of humans, that's all ok, but to exaggerate feature to make your point who's the boy and who's the girl by using well known stereotypes is a problem. OK, let me write that down in my policor notebook. I must say it contains so many contradictions it's actually becoming more of a funny joke collection.
You don’t have to oversexualize characters to show that they are female. But that’s not a problem of those specific cartoons, it actually shows that being female is culturally stereotyped. The cultural norm is being male. This has important implications in law making, politics, medicine 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 there’s also a tendency of objectification of women, which makes sense if you consider that the normal point of view is male. 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.
The issue is that folks think that you apparently need to SEXUALIZE AN ANIMAL so the audience knows it's female.
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. 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.
Just becuase you are offended doesn't mean you are right.Americans can be offended by everything
It’s not about being “offended”, it’s about criticizing a serious and harmful problem from our society: the masculine default. Those characters help us notice how the cultural norm is being male. When people think of a person, they think of a man. This has important implications in law making, politics, medicine and economics. Being man the “neutral” form means that the thought process is usually focused in men’s reality, and that the reality of women is considered “different”, an exception from normality. And there’s also a tendency of objectification of women, which makes sense if you consider that the normal point of view is male. 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.
Bacony, yes, I do, because cultural representations mold reality, they conform the way we perceive the world and the way we reproduce society norms
Well i don't think criticising cartoons will help with that, do you?
It doesn’t mean you’re wrong either.
Some people have really too much to waste and they are too easily offended by anything. Nothing is good enough and they start to see issues even if where they are not! Seriously, the way "female" characters are drawn is an issue? It is ridiculous, but I cannot even laugh at it, it is sad! I am sooo amazed every time about people's imagination! There is so much beauty around us and some of them just dig to "find" s**t everywhere, when actually this is only in their mind! Get a life people!
The problem is that being female is stereotyped. The cultural norm is being male. You also can see it in several culture products where there are a number of different male characters, each one with a different personality (the brave one, the intelligent/nerd one, the leader, the funny/goofy one, etc.) and ONE female character whose main characteristic is that she’s female. The complexity and variability of women are denied, as if women weren’t as human as men.------------------------------------------- That’s not a problem of those specific cartoons. It’s a dangerous trait of our society, and cause real harm, because female reality is considered an exception. It causes problems with laws, economics, politics, medicines, medical treatments, products, etc., because they are created based on male needs.
Well seeing how females have a different appearance than males. It makes sense. Also they are made up character for a cartoon. The only thing that separates the characters are gender and appearance. It's all made up anyway so why are people upset that someone created them to be female? When females have breasts and are a different shape than men. The character itself isn't supposed to make sense hence the made up character part. But assigning a gender does make sense and again, seeing how females have certain parts and so do men. I get it. There is no problem here. Smh.
They're just applying the human shape to animals. Nothing wrong with that.
Dude i only wanted to say that yes the chicken in rockadoodle was overtly sexualized but that was a big part of her character and i cant help it that movie was the shit cant deny the 90s kid in me lol
Also dont forget that elvis chicken was super over the top too
Now you got me thinking of don bluth movies and there is a good example of not sexualizing characters there secret of nimm they were just animals and that was cool you could only tell by mrs (frisbee? Brisbee?) Never could tell lol was a girl because of her voice really
Chanticleer was over the top, yes, but you don’t see male anthro animal characters in kids cartoons with over exaggerated sexual features. That’s the issue with the female ones. I know it’s a big part of the pheasant’s character but... man, Rock-a-doodle was not a great movie (speaking as a fan of Don Bluth).
I'm surprised nobody mentioned "Blacksad". Check out the gender differences there, you will be shocked.