Toxic Masculinity in Children's Animated Films: the Importance Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
TOXIC MASCULINITY IN CHILDREN’S ANIMATED FILMS: THE IMPORTANCE OF PORTRAYAL by ELIZABETH ANNE GRIMME B.A., University of Colorado Colorado Springs A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Colorado Colorado Springs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Communication 2019 © 2019 ELIZABETH ANNE GRIMME ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Elizabeth Anne Grimme has been approved for the Department of Communication By Christopher Bell, Chair Maja Krakowiak David Nelson Date 02/08/2019 ii Grimme, Elizabeth Anne (M.A., Communication) Toxic Masculinity in Children’s Animated Films: The Importance of Portrayal Thesis directed by Associate Professor Christopher Bell ABSTRACT This thesis defines toxic masculinity as social and physical traits that are harmful to not only women, but men as well. It outlines these detrimental traits as racism, homophobia, and sexism, and offers gender constancy, gender schema theory, gender stereotype theory, and social determinism as a way of explaining why these traits persist in 21st century masculinity. It also summarizes and discusses three studies of masculinity in popular culture, before emphasizing the importance of researching children’s media more thoroughly. The researcher then conducts a content analysis on twenty-one, randomly selected films with release dates ranging from 1970 to 2016, limiting the sample by decade and film success. The researcher found that there was no significant difference in the number of toxic masculine behaviors performed between the main male unsympathetic character and main male sympathetic character. Finally, the researcher discusses limitations, implications, and future research that can be done to further the study of toxic masculinity in children’s media. Keywords: toxic masculinity, communication, children’s media, animation, popular culture, social determinism iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Christopher Bell for chairing this thesis. He encouraged me to think bigger when I was thinking too small and reigned me back in when I got too ambitious. I would also like to thank my mother, Shauna Grimme; my father, Kevin Grimme; and my sister, Allyson Grimme. My mother spent five and a half years listening to me lecture her and my father on communication and toxic masculinity at the dinner table. My father challenged me at every turn, forcing me to think deeper and build stronger arguments. My sister found time around a busy schedule to not only listen to me think out loud, but to help code for this thesis. I would like to offer my deepest gratitude to my best friend, Marian Tuck, for helping me code, for giving me a shoulder to cry on when things got to be too much, and for those late nights right at the end. Finally, I would like to thank the Fountain IHOP, the location where most of this thesis was written. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..……………………………………………………………...1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………………………………………….2 Toxic Masculinity……………………………………………………………..2 Gender Constancy……………………………………………………………..4 Gender Schema………………………………………………………………..7 Gender Stereotype Theory…………………………………………………...11 Social Determinism…………………………………………………………..12 Sympathetic vs. Unsympathetic Characters………………………………….14 Categories of Masculinity……………………………………………………16 Animation Studios…………………………………………………………...21 III. METHODS……………………………………………………………………...25 Research Questions………………………….………………………………25 Sample………………………….……………………………………………26 Levels of Analysis………….………………………………………………..27 Children’s Animated Films…………………….……………………..27 Character Behaviors….……………………………………………….27 Coding Scheme……….………………………………………………28 v Sympathetic vs. Unsympathetic Characters..…...………….………....28 Toxic Masculine Behaviors………………...…..…….……………….29 Nontoxic Masculine Behaviors…….…………..……………………..29 Supporting Characters’ Reactions………...…………………………..30 Training and Reliability………….…………...……………………………..30 IV. RESULTS...……………………………………………………………………..32 V. DISCUSSION...…………………………………………………………………35 Gender Stereotype Theory…………………………………………………..36 Social Determinism….…….….….….….……….….….….……..………...43 Limitations…………………………………………………………………..50 Implications/Future Research……………………………………………….50 VI. CONCLUSION REFERENCES APPENDICES vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION When asked to define the traits that make someone “manly,” many would say things such as “strong,” “stoic,” and “fearless.” When asked to name the manliest characters they can think of, many would answer with Superman, Raleigh Becket from Pacific Rim, and Mel Gibson’s Benjamin Martin in The Patriot. Characters could also be described as “physically fit,” “good leaders,” and “brave.” Now consider characters like Gaston from Disney’s Beauty and the Beast and Clayton from Tarzan. One could argue that traits such as “aggressive” and “insensitive” would better describe these two characters, but are they truly that far removed from their more positive counterparts? Finally, consider characters like Hiccup from How to Train Your Dragon and Steven from Steven Universe. They are out-of-shape, emotionally compassionate characters who show fear. Should this affect the way audiences perceive these characters? Should either one of them be considered less of a hero—less of a man—due to the lack of certain traits that audiences are told make them such? According to toxic masculinity, the answer to these questions is yes. 1 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Toxic Masculinity Kupers defines toxic masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence” (2005). To break this definition down even further, it can be described using the more negative traits in masculinity: violent verbal, physical, or sexual acts performed to assert dominance over females or other men, homophobic actions and verbal phrases used to assert dominance over other men, and the “real men don’t cry” mentality. The topic of negative masculine traits has been studied in the communication discipline as far back as 1930 (Dondore, 1930). The criticism of these traits was first published by Dondore (1930), who discusses the boastful nature of mythological and folk heroes. Dondore (1930) references popular heroes such as Hector, who fought for Troy in the Trojan War, and American folk hero Buffalo Bill. Dondore describes this need for “big talk” as the “childishly naïve extolling of one’s own prowess” (1930). This obvious criticism sparked the broad inquiry into the way masculinity is portrayed in popular culture, and what that says about our values as a culture. The topic of toxic masculinity has been discussed at great length by scholars in many different areas of study. Banet-Weiser and Miltner (2015) discuss toxic masculinity in the context of the “#MasculinitySoFragile trend on Twitter. In this article, toxic masculinity is defined as “a (heterosexual) masculinity that is threatened by 2 anything associated with femininity,” though the term is referred to more often as “popular misogyny” (Banet-Weiser & Miltner, 2015). This falls in line with Kuper’s definition on two levels: toxic masculinity is inherently heterosexual and that it devalues anything feminine. The #MasculinitySoFragile trend itself gave proof of “wanton violence” in the form of threatening tweets from those against the hashtag. This hashtag also inspired backlash from the Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) and Pick-Up Artists (PUA), a subculture of “popular misogynists” (Banet-Weiser & Miltner, 2015). The wanton violence aspect of toxic masculinity is not only verbal, however. Haider (2016) discusses this and homophobia at great length in relation to the Pulse night club massacre in Orlando. To begin, Haider researches the origins of the term toxic masculinity, informing that it began as a way to look at the relationship between men and their fathers. It was not until later that the relationship between men and women was introduced (Haider, 2016). The researcher later goes on to describe the prevalence of toxic masculinity within patriarchal culture using violence and rage as evidence. Haider (2016) concludes that homosexuality challenges preconceptions of masculinity, and violence is the impulsive reaction to challenges to these preconceptions. In an article titled “Ask a Feminist,” Kimmel and Wade (2018) discuss toxic masculinity in today’s climate. Kimmel describes discussing this very topic at a sexual assault awareness lecture at West Point. Kimmel (2018) asked the cadets what it meant to be a “good man.” The researcher was given an array of answers, from “honor, duty, and integrity” to “sacrifice” (Kimmel & Wade, 2018). Kimmel then asked the cadets what it meant to be a “real man.” These answers differed greatly. The cadets gave answers such as “tough, strong, never show weakness, win at all costs, suck it up, play 3 through pain, be competitive, get rich, get laid” (Kimmel & Wade, 2018). The conclusion Kimmel (2018) drew from this is that the act of being a “real man” is performative, while being a “good man” is more abstract. This is evident just by comparing the two types of answers the cadets gave. While being a “good man” was more about being a genuinely good person, being a “real man” was more about proving and policing their own masculinity and the masculinity of others. One can see the difference between toxic and nontoxic masculinity based on these two types of answers as well. Being a “good man” was about treating